POTWR 2019 Vol 11: Can We All Test For Ourselves That The Earth Is Round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another, more simple test is to get a live feed of somewhere on the opposite side of the planet. If it's day time there and night time at your location, that's a pretty simple test that the earth is round. If it was flat, there would be moments where it was either totally day or totally night across the planet.
 
Or just look at the moon and notice that the earth has never cast a non-round shadow on it.
 
No, but that certainly needs to be part of this discussion because again, what is actually more logical? That we don't fall off of a stationary plane?

-or-

That we don't fall off of a ball that is spinning at around 1000 MPH...
as we fly around the sun at around 66,600 MPH...
as we fly through the milky way at around 450,000 MPH...
as we are moving through space at another 1,350,000 MPH?

Yes.

Thank-you!

Don't pussyfoot around. Do you think gravity exists, yay or nay? Put your cards on the table. Take a position.

Also, I am skeptical of your claim to understand velocity and acceleration when you seem to put great emphasis on the importance of our velocity as evidence the earth cannot be round. You do realize that constant velocity is imperceptible, right? You can test this by driving in a car at 100 mph. You can feel it when you accelerate and decelerate, but not when you drive at the same speed. In the same way, nothing can throw us off of the planet when our velocity remains constant. This is basic Newtonian physics.
 
Don't pussyfoot around. Do you think gravity exists, yay or nay? Put your cards on the table. Take a position.
LOL at the anger with you people. With a gun to my head, I'd go with gravity and a spinning whirling rock through space.

That said, as a thought experiment, we really don't know and it seems unnecessary. I am also quite impressed that the same force that can hold water and our entire atmosphere on our spinning whirling rock, also allows for birds to fly, people to walk, clouds to float, etc..

Also, I am skeptical of your claim to understand velocity and acceleration when you seem to put great emphasis on the importance of our velocity as evidence the earth cannot be round. You do realize that constant velocity is imperceptible, right? You can test this by driving in a car at 100 mph. You can feel it when you accelerate and decelerate, but not when you drive at the same speed. In the same way, nothing can throw us off of the planet when our velocity remains constant. This is basic Newtonian physics.
I'm skeptical of many things. Like your oversimplication of the idea that driving a car on a road equates somehow to a spinning, whirling rock through space.

Have you ever been on a "double-motion" ride at the amusement park? They used to make me sick. Our planet's motion is more like that, yet on acid.

Picture that same vehicle in your example, but tilted at a 66.6 degree angle and spinning at 1000 MPH on that axis as it moves down the road.

Do you think you might notice that?


Another, more simple test is to get a live feed of somewhere on the opposite side of the planet. If it's day time there and night time at your location, that's a pretty simple test that the earth is round. If it was flat, there would be moments where it was either totally day or totally night across the planet.
Not so once you understand how a vanishing point works.

Or just look at the moon and notice that the earth has never cast a non-round shadow on it.
You keep falling in the same trap. This reification fallacy is something you need to leave behind to look at this problem from the perspective of science. In other words, what evidence is there that the earth has ever cast that shadow?
 
Last edited:
The Foucault Pendulum is an example that proves that the earth is both spherical and rotating.
Not so, as it moves differently depending on the initial force and other factors.

If earth were spinning and thus causing the pendulum to swing, there should not be a single stationary pendulum anywhere on earth.

That failed experiment proves only how easily duped we can be.
 
@abiG, Are their public attempts out there to collect the 10k that were officially submitted and denied?
 
@abiG, Are their public attempts out there to collect the 10k that were officially submitted and denied?
I googled it and saw nothing and the offer has been out there since 2018.

I am not aware of any experiment that shows curvature or movement, let alone one that demonstrates the bending and/or curving of still water, especially around a spinning ball.

And again, every single time it was tried, it showed the exact opposite.

Einstein believed that it could not be done, so whoever does it will go down in history.
 
I googled it and saw nothing and the offer has been out there since 2018.

I am not aware of any experiment that shows curvature or movement, let alone one that demonstrates the bending and/or curving of still water, especially around a spinning ball.

And again, every single time it was tried, it showed the exact opposite.

Einstein believed that it could not be done, so whoever does it will go down in history.

It would be nice to see what arguments have been rejected. Not that I'd understand 'em. :(
 
You should, and if you're that rich that 10 dimes isn't worth it for you, why hasn't anyone else?

BS! To sum up your offerings:
'Flat-earthers' either havn't done the curvature math correctly or have used the wrong formula.


For 1 it would require me to read your post in full, watch the video and the long Spoiler of rules. Also going somewhere, setting up something like that, filming, editing, etc would probably cost me thousands of dollars. Plus I'd need to make sure the ground was actually 100% same elevation across the test location. Also I'm not sure that you'd even get paid.

I'd assume they'd want more than going to the beach and watching a sun set from the ground and have someone else watch from the hotel balcony. Or even just watch it laying down then quickly stand to see the end again.

"BS!" nothing, multiple times in your responses you were responding to things that weren't the point of my post as if you were selectively reading a sentence but not the context sentence either before or after it.

Like your response, Go as high as you like, Do it! Post it! Maybe you're the one, lol, etc.

Anyway as far as the water on a spinning ball that would be astronomically more expensive to prove than the reward. Need a zero G room I'd assume, find a way to create gravity pulling to the core, pour water on it then find a way to create an atmosphere and spin the ball at whatever scale speed it would need to be to match earths 1 revolution per day. Maybe it can be done without an atmosphere but things like drag, pressure, density, etc wouldn't come into play.

Now if you could use magnets at whatever strength our gravity is and a liquid similar to water but that is attracted to a magnetic it could probably be done without breaking the bank. Would still need to find a way to spin it I suppose. Even then though our own gravity and things would have an effect on it so it probably wouldn't work without adjusting for that by increasing magnet strength.
 
Again, this isn't a direct reply to AbiG, only to people that are genuinely curious. I suspect he will continue to get the burden of proof confused and just deny any evidence shown as faked or misleading without actually proving the evidence is false. I suspect he’s just being contrarian at this point, and there’s no reason to believe he intends to have a discussion in good faith.

Not so, as it moves differently depending on the initial force and other factors.

They take this into consideration when they design the experiment and calibrate the initial swing to make it repeatable.

If earth were spinning and thus causing the pendulum to swing, there should not be a single stationary pendulum anywhere on earth.

He’s not wrong. The issue is that you would need a very large pendulum or some fine instruments in order to see those forces affect on a stationary pendulum. The forces would easily be cancelled by dampening in the string and air resistance.

So that people do not misunderstand, I'll try to explain with an illustration.
Imagine a large pendulum in a circular room with a high ceiling. You take the plumb and walk to the edge of the room. Let’s call that 12 o’clock. You release the plumb and the pendulum swings to 6 o’clock, then back to 12, and so on. In theory, the pendulum would follow that 12 to 6 path until air resistance or another force brought it to a stop.
Now imagine that the building was slowly rotating, but you stood in the same place. To you, the pendulum swing would look as if it was starting to rotate, when in reality it is you that is rotating around an axis. Now imagine the same pendulum built at the North Pole. Over a 24 hour period, it would look like the pendulum’s path had done a complete rotation when in reality it was the earth beneath it that did the revolution.

So what you would actually observe in a Foucault pendulum, assuming you live in the northern hemisphere, is that after initially moving from 12 to 6, after some time, the line would move clockwise until the pendulum was swinging between 1 and 7, then later 2 to 8 and so on. The closer to the North Pole you are, the faster that revolution would take to complete because the angular momentum is greater closer to the axis of the spin. This has been observed in many places and is indisputable proof of a round, rotating earth.
 
Cubo de Sangre and Fawlty

Before I respond to this:
It would be nice to see what arguments have been rejected. Not that I'd understand 'em. :(
And this:
For 1 it would require me to read your post in full, watch the video and the long Spoiler of rules. Also going somewhere, setting up something like that, filming, editing, etc would probably cost me thousands of dollars. Plus I'd need to make sure the ground was actually 100% same elevation across the test location. Also I'm not sure that you'd even get paid.

I'd assume they'd want more than going to the beach and watching a sun set from the ground and have someone else watch from the hotel balcony. Or even just watch it laying down then quickly stand to see the end again.

"BS!" nothing, multiple times in your responses you were responding to things that weren't the point of my post as if you were selectively reading a sentence but not the context sentence either before or after it.

Like your response, Go as high as you like, Do it! Post it! Maybe you're the one, lol, etc.

Anyway as far as the water on a spinning ball that would be astronomically more expensive to prove than the reward. Need a zero G room I'd assume, find a way to create gravity pulling to the core, pour water on it then find a way to create an atmosphere and spin the ball at whatever scale speed it would need to be to match earths 1 revolution per day. Maybe it can be done without an atmosphere but things like drag, pressure, density, etc wouldn't come into play.

Now if you could use magnets at whatever strength our gravity is and a liquid similar to water but that is attracted to a magnetic it could probably be done without breaking the bank. Would still need to find a way to spin it I suppose. Even then though our own gravity and things would have an effect on it so it probably wouldn't work without adjusting for that by increasing magnet strength.
And this:
Again, this isn't a direct reply to AbiG, only to people that are genuinely curious. I suspect he will continue to get the burden of proof confused and just deny any evidence shown as faked or misleading without actually proving the evidence is false. I suspect he’s just being contrarian at this point, and there’s no reason to believe he intends to have a discussion in good faith.



They take this into consideration when they design the experiment and calibrate the initial swing to make it repeatable.



He’s not wrong. The issue is that you would need a very large pendulum or some fine instruments in order to see those forces affect on a stationary pendulum. The forces would easily be cancelled by dampening in the string and air resistance.

So that people do not misunderstand, I'll try to explain with an illustration.
Imagine a large pendulum in a circular room with a high ceiling. You take the plumb and walk to the edge of the room. Let’s call that 12 o’clock. You release the plumb and the pendulum swings to 6 o’clock, then back to 12, and so on. In theory, the pendulum would follow that 12 to 6 path until air resistance or another force brought it to a stop.
Now imagine that the building was slowly rotating, but you stood in the same place. To you, the pendulum swing would look as if it was starting to rotate, when in reality it is you that is rotating around an axis. Now imagine the same pendulum built at the North Pole. Over a 24 hour period, it would look like the pendulum’s path had done a complete rotation when in reality it was the earth beneath it that did the revolution.

So what you would actually observe in a Foucault pendulum, assuming you live in the northern hemisphere, is that after initially moving from 12 to 6, after some time, the line would move clockwise until the pendulum was swinging between 1 and 7, then later 2 to 8 and so on. The closer to the North Pole you are, the faster that revolution would take to complete because the angular momentum is greater closer to the axis of the spin. This has been observed in many places and is indisputable proof of a round, rotating earth.
Can you please explain why you liked these posts? Did they meet your preconceived notions? Did they satisfy empirical science based on the scientific method? Is it possible you can google this shit and find the exact same story? And how easily it was for Einstein to understand how futile this thinking was?

I mean, the posts from both were pure conjecture, and while reroute does not make any case, the case higus is making IS A KNOWN FUCKING CARNIVAL TRICK!

Please guys, google that shit. Every single one of us can replicate why that is total, unadulterated bullshit, but figure it out for yourselves before I have to show you.

Be real!
 
There is no arguing with flat earthers. You could take them to space, show them the earth is a sphere, and they would probably start foaming at the mouth about holograms, paintings on the windows, or how they are in a bunker somewhere being misled.

All the science, all the observations, all the evidence says the earth is a sphere (or close to it, centrifugal force cause a slight deviation as the earth cooled). Hell, any joe blow can prove it now with a balloon and an iphone, which has been done several times. But flat earthers will use bad math, impossible requirements, and bad-faith arguing to keep their tiny little minds happy that the earth is a flat disc and we are all being duped for reasons that they refuse to or cannot explain.
 
Can you please explain why you liked these posts? Did they meet your preconceived notions?

I liked posts that made an earnest attempt at the discussion. I'm in no position to evaluate anyone's scientific claims.
 
This is how the debate goes..... I show you any number of easily googable examples of a round earth and you say they are false and what you know is science.

Its absurd.

Play with me.... why? If flat why the absurd effort to hide it?

What are the beginning and end of this flat earth? Begins at the day change? Do you see what I am saying? I hope so.

It takes a moment to travel from whatever the end of the flat earth is to the front....

Subject for the next POWTR thread . . . is googable a word?

<{ohyeah}>
 
Can you please explain why you liked these posts? Did they meet your preconceived notions? Did they satisfy empirical science based on the scientific method? Is it possible you can google this shit and find the exact same story? And how easily it was for Einstein to understand how futile this thinking was?

I mean, the posts from both were pure conjecture, and while reroute does not make any case

Lol

I haven't been trying to prove anything. You even thanked me for admitting this, not that it was a secret. I have been responding to the OP title about potential ways to test things or explaining how impractical/expensive it was not to in some cases. Also stating perceived flaws imo about other tests.


They probably liked it based on the fact that they agree the water test would be astronomically expensive and the other 10k you would have to put thousands into with no guarantee of return even if you did "prove" something one way or the other. Also if you haven't noticed I've repeatedly said prove be it flat or curved. My opinion is that it is curved but I keep stating curved or flat because I personally have not been proving anything one way or the other...
 
Like your response, Go as high as you like, Do it! Post it! Maybe you're the one, lol, etc.
You were arguing the math. You provided NONE of your own figures. To be clear, these people could have been 100 feet up on the mass and the objects would still not be visible if we lived on a ball that was 25,000 miles in circumference.

Do you understand now?

To further illustrate that what you and @Fawlty (his salt flats theory which I debunked) have done is conflated what is known as a vanishing point with an object that you believed moved over a curved horizon, I have time stamped this video that will show you clearly and yet again. Btw, he will be doing this live on June 2nd, it would be great if everyone on this thread watches that.

It starts with an explanation of the experiment here:


And please remember that this can be replicated by anyone with a $500 camera from Nikon.

-----

RE: The only thing Foucault's pendulum proves is how gullible the masses can be.

Now, has anyone looked into the hoax that @Higus believes proves the motion of earth?

I mentioned it was a carnival trick. Here's why:
1) It uses a ball and socket joint which is literally made to facilitate a circular motion. Try the exact same thing with the string simply attached to the object that would hold it in the air.

2) This experiment is far from replicable. Sometimes, it has been shown to swing in the wrong direction, sometimes a straight line sometimes move far to fast and sometimes even too slow.

3) The whole thing is based on a lateral bias from the initiator of the first swing, and again, should the earth be moving underneath the pendulum as claimed, no initiation would be needed, and yet we all agree that a perpetual motion machine is not possible.

We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this ‘pendulum proof’ that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point … If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be ‘scientific’ to believe what the astronomers teach.”​
-Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science”

Lol

I haven't been trying to prove anything. You even thanked me for admitting this, not that it was a secret. I have been responding to the OP title about potential ways to test things or explaining how impractical/expensive it was not to in some cases. Also stating perceived flaws imo about other tests.


They probably liked it based on the fact that they agree the water test would be astronomically expensive and the other 10k you would have to put thousands into with no guarantee of return even if you did "prove" something one way or the other. Also if you haven't noticed I've repeatedly said prove be it flat or curved. My opinion is that it is curved but I keep stating curved or flat because I personally have not been proving anything one way or the other...
Ok, thanks again for clarifying. Let's watch together on June 2nd and meet back here to discuss.

And I'd love your thoughts on how they saw the mirror even over the shorter distance in the video linked above.

I liked posts that made an earnest attempt at the discussion. I'm in no position to evaluate anyone's scientific claims.
Gotcha, still trying to believe "earnest" as these posts are debunked so easily, though.

Will you be watching the 2nd? And will you watch 5 minutes from the timestamped video linked above? I'd love your thoughts. And I know your still catching shit for even daring to allow this discussion, so if you feel uncomfortable about responding to the experiment and what it confirms, I understand.


There is no arguing with flat earthers. You could take them to space, show them the earth is a sphere, and they would probably start foaming at the mouth about holograms, paintings on the windows, or how they are in a bunker somewhere being misled.

All the science, all the observations, all the evidence says the earth is a sphere (or close to it, centrifugal force cause a slight deviation as the earth cooled). Hell, any joe blow can prove it now with a balloon and an iphone, which has been done several times. But flat earthers will use bad math, impossible requirements, and bad-faith arguing to keep their tiny little minds happy that the earth is a flat disc and we are all being duped for reasons that they refuse to or cannot explain.
This entire post is an ad hominem attack, but for "Hell, any joe blow can prove it now with a balloon and an iphone, which has been done several times."

What are you talking about? Please show us this proof and become The One!
 
Gotcha, still trying to believe "earnest" as these posts are debunked so easily, though.

Will you be watching the 2nd? And will you watch 5 minutes from the timestamped video linked above? I'd love your thoughts. And I know your still catching shit for even daring to allow this discussion, so if you feel uncomfortable about responding to the experiment and what it confirms, I understand.

That's fine, but please tread lightly with your comments towards others. If I gotta reply ban you then this thread gets locked up early. :)

I'll check out the video later. What's on the 2nd? I seem to have missed that part.
 
Thanks. Here's some advice for you and anyone else that doesn't like the topic of this edition. Contribute something better. I've been asking for months. If you've got nothing but just wanna complain then you're what I call problems without solutions. Guaranteed not one of you steps up.
Fair enough, I'll PM you something in a minute.
 
You were arguing the math. You provided NONE of your own figures.

Incorrect, I provided a link with them which is the exact same thing you did.

his salt flats theory which I debunked

But you didn't.

You posted a video that was ridden with heat mirage. Light refraction wasn't taken into account in that video. The car literally appeared 20 feet in the air at times.

Examples of mirage and light refraction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...llusion-china-saw-weird-floating-city-2015-10

http://phyzblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/illusions-on-rainy-lake.html?m=1

tom-phillips-buzzfeed-ilyast-syntika-thinkstock-mirage.jpg

miragesup.png

2946-mirage12-jpg.jpg

Fata_Morgana_Example.jpg
 
That's fine, but please tread lightly with your comments towards others. If I gotta reply ban you then this thread gets locked up early. :)
Not sure what I did, but OK.

I'll check out the video later. What's on the 2nd? I seem to have missed that part.
Did you read the above post, lol? I mentioned he will be doing the same experiment, but over a 30+ miles distance. This will be live on the 2nd. We all should watch the above video and then watch live on the 2nd.



Incorrect, I provided a link with them which is the exact same thing you did.



But you didn't.

You posted a video that was ridden with heat mirage. Light refraction wasn't taken into account in that video. The car literally appeared 20 feet in the air at times.

Examples of mirage and light refraction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...llusion-china-saw-weird-floating-city-2015-10

http://phyzblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/illusions-on-rainy-lake.html?m=1

tom-phillips-buzzfeed-ilyast-syntika-thinkstock-mirage.jpg

miragesup.png

2946-mirage12-jpg.jpg

Fata_Morgana_Example.jpg
Please post the refraction formula you are using as well as empirical evidence if possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top