Re: Experiments We All Can Do

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:23 am

Posted by abefroman on 07/22/2015
I think they might just show another proof of the flat earth... if you stood at one end looking at the other end below a height of five feet, according to their calculations the last light of the lower line should not be visible. And you could view this from approximate angles, away from the lights.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:23 am

Posted by abefroman on 07/23/2015
Of course they are not trying to prove anything, instead the purpose is perception management. But I'm just saying that they will inadvertently do a flat earth proof when they place lights along the flattest surface in the U.S. for 2.7 miles. If the end lights are visible from 2.7 miles from under a height of 5 feet, and this could be seen using a zoom lens, then the 25,000 mile-round ball is incorrect. But there's the possibility of not even having an unobstructed view from 3 feet above the ground for a span of that distance there.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:24 am

Posted by truthermike on 07/31/2015
Telescopic test

I admittedly haven't read every post in this thread, but a few days ago I had an idea for a fairly straight forward test. 2 (or more) people could go to the same elevation on mountains a known distance apart. Using high powered telescopes, they should be able to see each other. If the distances were far enough apart, this would instantly disprove the ball earth theory - would it not?

This is similar to the laser test without need for a billion dollar laser. A camera could be used through the telescope for video proof.

Please feel free to point out any problems with this idea - just trying to contribute.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:24 am

Posted by schpankme on 07/31/2015

Jul 30, 2015 20:10:55 GMT truthermike said:
Telescopic test
2 (or more) people could go to the same elevation on mountains a known distance apart
Using high powered telescopes, they should be able to see each other

From Mt Hood you can see Mt Jefferson and the Three Sisters, totaling 100 miles (161 km) in the distance.

Mount Hood, Elevation: 11,250 feet (3429 m)

Three Sisters, Elevation: 10,000 feet (3,000 m)

Experiments We All Can Do - Page 2 101045177.z19Ar3a1.MtAdamsMtH_ilview

Experiments We All Can Do - Page 2 101045177.z19Ar3a1.MtAdamsMtH_ilview

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:25 am

Posted by mark4215 on 08/05/2015
I had a thought while looking at the FE map. Someone could fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo and bring a compass. just film the compass for the whole flight, and see if you really do go "west" the whole flight or if you go predominantly north, then predominantly south. Please forgive me if this is an old thought, but I am somewhat new to this concept and looking for ways to prove it one way or another. I am mostly convinced that we are stationary, and the stars circle around us, but I am still looking at different observations. Thank You.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:25 am

Posted by eliottraft on 08/15/2015
Hi, everybody. I've been reading through this forum for a while now, and I've been trying to come up with an experiment I could use to prove the shape of the earth for/to myself. So I needed it to be cheap, easy, and something I could do alone. I finally came up with something that fit my requirements. I haven't tried it yet. I was hoping I could run it past the people on this forum to see if anyone has ideas to improve it, or maybe just let me know if you think it could even work. I'll try not to ramble on too long.

Basically, my idea is to use a sundial and check the sun's travel. If the earth is a globe, the sun should follow a nearly straight path across the sky. If the earth is not a globe, the sun is following the arc of a circle as it travels across the sky. My experiment is to put a little sundial, or stick, or whatever, straight up in the middle of a sheet of paper layed on something flat. Then, I would make a little mark, as accurately as possible, on just the very tip of the cast shadow at multiple times over the course of the day.

My theory is that the shape of the line followed by the points laid out during the day can prove the shape of the earth. A globe should, as far as I can tell, make a nearly straight line. Maybe with a very gradual curve either North or South, depending on which solstice we are heading towards. A flat earth should trace out an arc of a circle. I think it would be most noticible near summer sostice when the radius travelled by the sun is smallest.

Anyway, the two problems with this that I thought of were:
1- the radius of the sun may be too large, so that we wouldn't really be able to track that in the small slice (relatively speaking) of the sky above the sundial, and
2- if it does show the sun's arc, globers will say it's just atmospheric refraction.

Anyone have anything to add? I would appreciate it. Thanks!

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:26 am

Posted by schpankme on 08/16/2015

Aug 15, 2015 9:36:38 GMT eliottraft said:

I've been reading this forum for a while now
trying to come up with an experiment to prove the shape of the earth

my idea
use a sundial and check the sun's travel
If the earth is a globe, the sun should follow a nearly straight path across the sky

The "sundial" will not work on the Magical Ball Earth.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:27 am

Posted by schpankme on 08/16/2015
Aug 15, 2015 18:45:09 GMT eliottraft said:

it proves you can't use a globe and pencil as a sundial
because it's not to scale
[with] the globe model

There is NO Magical Globe Earth, it doesn't matter how big you think it is, the Sundial only works on the Flat Earth.

St. Peter's Square
four thousand year old Egyptian obelisk

Experiments We All Can Do - Page 2 Egyptian-obelisk-in-vatican-square

Experiments We All Can Do - Page 2 Egyptian-obelisk-in-vatican-square

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:27 am

Posted by questionauthority on 08/18/2015
I did about 20 hours research and production on this experiment. I tried to be fair as always because I want to know the truth in any matter.
Hope this helps anyone in the future thinking about looking into the sundial vs flat earth theory. Please contribute anything that can correct my findings if I made any mistakes. Thanks!

Conclusion:
If anyone can find a different result after conducting the same experiment then I would be more than happy to see it because I feel at this point that the sundial issue is a null argument for flat earth.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:28 am

Posted by Admin on 08/18/2015
I wouldn't say it's "a null argument." If the Moon is spinning around the Earth, the Earth spinning around the Sun, and the Sun itself spiraling around the galaxy which is shooting through the infinite universe, it is not possible that these 750 year old stone sun/moondials can still tell time accurately down to the minute using tiny pebbles.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:28 am

Posted by questionauthority on 08/19/2015

Aug 18, 2015 13:29:19 GMT Admin said:
I wouldn't say it's "a null argument." See the following video/thread: ifers.boards.net/thread/433/light-shadows-prove-earth-flat If the Moon is spinning around the Earth, the Earth spinning around the Sun, and the Sun itself spiraling around the galaxy which is shooting through the infinite universe, it is not possible that these 750 year old stone sun/moondials can still tell time accurately down to the minute using tiny pebbles.

That is correct. I will contemplate that and it may lead me to make a new video about just that. Thanks Eric. This is why we research!

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:29 am

Posted by gnosticwarrior on 08/19/2015

Aug 18, 2015 13:29:19 GMT Admin said:
I wouldn't say it's "a null argument." See the following video/thread: ifers.boards.net/thread/433/light-shadows-prove-earth-flat If the Moon is spinning around the Earth, the Earth spinning around the Sun, and the Sun itself spiraling around the galaxy which is shooting through the infinite universe, it is not possible that these 750 year old stone sun/moondials can still tell time accurately down to the minute using tiny pebbles.

This is still one of THE biggest proofs for me, and I constantly bring it up to others. The level of accuracy and coincidence involved to make the majority of the ball theory work is beyond hilarious and entertaining.

"So, all of these things are spinning wildly through space...yet somehow mange to "lock" with one another perfectly...?"

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:30 am

Posted by susie on 09/15/2015
About these balloon launches, how about a launch near the North Pole so we can look for Mt Meru? Or a launch near Antarctica?
If you want to see over the atmospheric conditions that would be a way.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:30 am

Posted by Admin on 09/15/2015
I would LOVE to see a launch directed towards the North Pole.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:30 am

Posted by levelbest on 09/25/2015
I realize this is pretty basic, and has probably already been suggested, but what the hell. The other day I watched a video of what I think was the highest amateur rocket launch on record. Anyway, the rocket made it something like 70 miles up, before it inexplicably made contact with some invisible barrier and bounced off. The makers of the video believe that it was the rocket bouncing off the dome over the flat earth. So basically, my idea is simply to repeat the rocket launch, only this time, to include some sort of altimeter, to at least give us an approximation of the height of the dome. If you wanted to get really ambitious, the experiment could be repeated very far south, to see if the height of the dome/barrier would be lower closer to the edge of the known earth, as we would assume it would be. Multiple launches around the globe might reveal different heights, and provide us enough data to figure out the slope of the dome, and approximate its size.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:30 am

Posted by jahwho on 09/25/2015
If the balloon was launched at the southern tip of Argentina , is there a way to see beyond the ice wall?

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:31 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/25/2015

Sept 24, 2015 22:43:32 GMT levelbest said:
I realize this is pretty basic, and has probably already been suggested, but what the hell. The other day I watched a video of what I think was the highest amateur rocket launch on record. Anyway, the rocket made it something like 70 miles up, before it inexplicably made contact with some invisible barrier and bounced off. The makers of the video believe that it was the rocket bouncing off the dome over the flat earth. So basically, my idea is simply to repeat the rocket launch, only this time, to include some sort of altimeter, to at least give us an approximation of the height of the dome. If you wanted to get really ambitious, the experiment could be repeated very far south, to see if the height of the dome/barrier would be lower closer to the edge of the known earth, as we would assume it would be. Multiple launches around the globe might reveal different heights, and provide us enough data to figure out the slope of the dome, and approximate its size.

That sounds like a sensible and worth wile idea if it could be arranged and as long as it isn't too expensive. Sometimes basic ideas are the best, and this does need to be done eventually.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:31 am

Posted by levelbest on 09/25/2015

Sept 25, 2015 1:54:00 GMT jahwho said:
If the balloon was launched at the southern tip of Argentina , is there a way to see beyond the ice wall?

Who knows how many miles until the wall? All the cold wind and snow wouldn't make for great depth of field either. How about a weatherproof drone?

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:32 am

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/25/2015

Sept 25, 2015 1:54:00 GMT jahwho said:
If the balloon was launched at the southern tip of Argentina , is there a way to see beyond the ice wall?

Potentially. There would be many problems involved in getting the balloon into position and launching it, what with the extreme weather conditions and the military guards, but if you could manage to launch it, then you should be able to get some form of view. It may not be clear though, because you cannot see very far through thick snow storms. Maybe if you went high enough you could get some form of idea as to what is the other side of the ice wall.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:32 am

Posted by richlion on 09/30/2015
[color:e686=093b74]Experiment with gravity

Start off by saying, “We are told that a larger mass attracts a smaller mass. Well, if this is true, the bowling ball should attract the tennis ball.”

Take a bowling ball and a tennis ball. Put the bowling ball on the ground and stand about 10 feet away with the tennis ball and roll it past the bowling ball. Don't try to hit it but just roll it close to the bowling ball. Explain to the person that, “If a bigger object attracts a small one, why was there absolutely no attraction at all with the tennis ball?”

The person will either have some lame excuse why it didn't happen or they will start to doubt their globe earth belief.

Demonstrate with words

Many experiments or demonstrations you can't do because it would either cost too much or it would not be practical. In this case, you have to demonstrate with words only. If you take a topic that it's easy to conceptualise, most people would be able to follow along. An example would be flying to a high altitude and look at the horizon. In this case, you say, “The next time you fly in a plane look out the window and take some pictures. What do you notice? A flat horizon or a curved horizon?”

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:33 am

Posted by rhysearch on 10/05/2015
I find the biggest proof to me that this earth is flat is our horizon and water. It completely proves that water simply would not work on this globe theory.

A lot of the time we are using math to prove the curvature of the horizon and that it is not there.

Im finding a lot of the time that this math gets passed as incorrect and it simply can't be that much of a drastic curvature drop therefore the math must be wrong.

So I decided to prove the math right with something other than math itself. What better to use than industry standard architectural software?

I opened autocad 2014, set my drawing units to miles and created a circle with the exact same radius as earth and what we are told.

Autocad lets you work in realtime measurement but it will fit it to your screen with the options of zooming in and out without limits.

Here are my findings which also cross check with the maths, therefore proving them both in fact spot on.

I hope some of you find some use in this

Experiments We All Can Do - Page 2 Smiley

1 mile = 0.00012629 mile curvature drop which equates to 8.002 inches

3 miles = 0.00113665 mile curvature drop which equates to 72.018 inches

10 miles = 0.01262947 mile curvature drop which equates to 800.203 inches

50 miles = 0.315 mile curvature drop.

100 miles = 1.26 mile curvature drop.

200 miles = 5.05 mile curvature drop

300 miles = 11.38 mile curvature drop

400 miles = 20.25 mile curvature drop

500 miles = 31.70 miles curvature drop

1000 miles = 128.37 miles Curvature drop

I have attached the image of my model in autocad to support my findings

feel free to ask if anyone would like to know a specific curvature drop for a distance I'll be more than happy to check for you!

Rhys

Attachments:

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:33 am

Thank you, Rhys.

Just what we needed! I posted a week or so ago that I wanted to do what you did but I didn't have software.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:34 am

Posted by searching on 10/06/2015
Some of the most convincing evidence to me that the ground (earth) is not what is moving (spinning) are butterflies and birds and air and trees and clouds. They don't seem to care that the ground below them is moving at hundreds of miles per hour.

I've been particularly watching clouds lately. There doesn't seem to be a "leading edge" that is traveling any faster or slower than other parts of the same cloud that are at different altitudes. If the ground at a given latitude is moving at, say, 800 miles per hour, then at what elevation would something at that latitude change speed? Wouldn't something be slower an inch off the ground? Even slower a thousand feet up? The "drive" that is supposedly spinning a globe would not be driving the air above the ground at the same speed. How could it? They are not "attached". So a tree should be leaning away from the spin. At least I should be able to look at a tall tree and see a definite lean, or maybe the leaves "rushing" against the air. A cloud even higher than a tree should be disappearing quickly. But the clouds above me, weak and almost substance-less, just go on their merry way at the same "speed" as I. Sometimes they go "forward" with the alleged spin; sometimes they go backward. What's up with that?

I've been up in a plane at 35,000 feet. The clouds appear to be "traveling" the same as the ground. What has attached them to the spinning earth that they are moving at the same speed.

But then today, I realized that the higher a cloud is, the greater the circumference of their circle around the center of the earth. Which means, that if a cloud appears to be going the same speed in the air that I, on the ground, am going, it must be traveling way, way faster than I. So not only would a spinning globe spin the clouds and air above the globe (albeit completely mysteriously), but the globe would have to spin what is above it much faster than itself.

I wouldn't mind someone who is more technically savvy put together some kind of video showing how this would work, and explain more eloquently than I why it certainly would not.

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:34 am

Posted by searching on 10/07/2015
What is the method of measuring the length of a degree (or minute or whatever) of longitude at a given latitude? (Pardon my ignorance.) Does it have to do with the position of the sun? Whichever way you use, as you measure this distance across latitudes from points north toward the equator, the distance would grow in a linear way. That seems reasonable regardless of earth model. But then what happens when you continue this same process southward past the equator? It seems like this would be a worthwhile experiment to conduct. Or maybe it already has been done. Anybody know?

by Thinkforyourself Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:39 am

Some of you may remember a supposed light experiment that was planned on Kickstarter last year called 'Straightedge'. It was supposed to show that the Earth had curvature by shining beams of light into space, by placing lights in a line.

Anyway, I looked it up today, wondering whether they had the nerve to fake the results that they wanted, and amazingly they are basically admitting that they failed.

Here is a link where the original person asking the question admits that he can't see the supposed curvature, and then one of the people responsible for the project basically admits that you cannot see any curvature:

I was pretty underwhelmed by this piece. I really thought I'd be able to see the two lines curving away from each other but it just looked like two parallel lines to me, no matter where I viewed it from. Anyone have a pic that demonstrates it well? I was really excited for this one and wanted it to work but I just couldn't grasp it with how quickly it was flashing.

Hi! I'm Ian, one of the project's designers.
Sadly, Straightedge was a very hard thing to photograph. We ran into this issue when we tried to make renders of it before building it, so we could see what it would look like. There are two issues:
[*]Since a photo can have any lens angle, any set of lines converging toward the horizon will look reasonable. Since photos tend to exhibit various kinds of lens distortion, we're used to seeing curved things in them that are not curved in reality. The thing Straightedge shows is subtle. Reality is a much more consistent backdrop against which to present it.
[*]The curvature of the Earth is visible, but only barely. That is, the changes you see in distance are right near the resolution limit of human vision. Our calculations and tests revealed that you'd be able to see two diverging lines, but we figured you'd probably have to convince yourself that the bottom line expressed a curve. That is, it wouldn't be an obvious curve. If it were, the straightedge wouldn't be necessary. The whole point here was to create a tool for seeing something that you can't normally.
To get the effect, there were basically two ways to experience it: 1. Stand way off to the side, so you're looking perpendicular to the line and can see a whole bunch of it. This worked from certain positions, but it was very hard to photograph against the backdrop of BRC. or, 2. Stand right next to it, and walk along it and see the lights diverge as you pass them. This is the easier position to photograph it from, but you don't really see the curvature if you're standing in one place, since lines normally converge toward the horizon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/3n4nux/does_anyone_have_a_good_pic_of_the_straightedge/

by Sponsored content