The 10,000 Dollar Baller Challenge

Tristan, you have failed to provide measurable proof for the Earth's alleged curvature and its motion. If the Earth really was a ball it would be as simple as going out and measuring the curve (any day of the week is probably good). How sunny it is or isn't in Philadelphia or in Casablanca in the winter on a particular week has nothing to do with it. Suppose the Sun disappears—does that mean that the Earth is no longer a ball? Even with no Sun we would be able to (easily) prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is a ball. It's simple mathematics, really.

But we know that the Earth is not a ball, because water can't bend.

Dual1ty wrote:
Tristan
you failed to provide measurable proof for the Earth's alleged curvature and its motion

"Expectation is the mother of all frustration."  


NASA images of Earth, no Really!








by WisdomShared Cheyenne

Schpankme wrote:

Dual1ty wrote:
Tristan
you failed to provide measurable proof for the Earth's alleged curvature and its motion

"Expectation is the mother of all frustration."  


NASA images of Earth, no Really!

I can answer this one. It's because the average worm (sheeple, ants etc whatever you want to call Mr and Mrs Average) that inhabits this plane is so dumb they actually don't even know what NASA or anyone else is actually claiming about the ball model. I have asked a handful of people things such as why do pilots fly really strange routes and the usual answer I get is "It's because of the spin of the planet". Lol as in they don't even know that the balltard high priests don't even claim this nonsense!. This is also apparently believed to be the cause of tornadoes by the masses. You couldnt make this shit up!

Meanwhile at Lake Pontchartrain

Tristan Wisefist wrote:So, on northern hemisphere is equally easy to explain on both models, the problem arises on the southern on FE.

Why is noone engaging with the arguments at all? Just throwing out other non-related stuff for my argument.

Well, maybe I can post some thoughts, even though new to the case and forum.

I have heard that some times: "how can the FE explain this and that? Ball-earth can explain that easy!"

You have been using this as argument as well: a "model" that explains phaenomena better or is the only one known to explain a phenomenon is, according to science "more probable". Anyway, what you suggest is to favor one explanation over some other, unknown or seemingly rediculous one.

But, the fact is that it does not matter, how good some model explains observations concerning the reality.

I told my daughter: I hate the fact that the earth is flat, because all explanations I had learned and studied are useless now!
But I cannot deny what I see. We live on Gran Canaria, we can see a huge horizon over the ocean. It is easy to go up and down several 10th of meters and see that just the perspective changes and not the horizon AND COASTLINES(!), that would have to change on a ball-earth.

So, Tristan, it may be that the ball-model explains some sun-positions in a way we can understand them. If we ASSUME that the earth is a ball and tilted, we can explain some positions of sun on earth easy. But that does not prove that the earth is a ball.

When we imagine electrons swirling around nuclear kernels, we can explain some chemical reactions quite easy. Anyway, we know that in reality, there are NO electrons swirling around nuclear kernels (as this would produce a steady radiation and thus loss of the energy to swirl around...)

You can see this the way: the ball-model explains some effects, nicely, that can be observed, but by that it does not prove that the earth is a ball!

The horizon I see from my balkony is 200 miles wide, or more. It would have to be about 1000m lower than the meridian on each side of my sight. I can see Fuerteventura about 800m height - so I have an idea how much 1000m curvature would be!
On each side of my sight, there is one island (Teneriffe and Fuerteventura) the last one just abour 820m at the highest point above the ground, about 100mk far away. One must not see this in the ball-model!

So while the ball-model might explain some observations, just by that it does not prove itself more than a model to explain SOME observations.

But by not being able to explain what I can observe with my own eyes, it can be proved to be JUST a MODEL for SOME explanations, not the reality.

The FE-model, as explained here, looks to me as a model as well.

I do not think that all the postulations Eric does are right. All that I can say is: the world is flat. How the sun and moon work, their shapes and ways, I do not know. What are the stars? I do not know. How to explain most of the phaemomena? I do not know.

But the earth cannot be a ball with 6350km radius, because I would have to be able to see the curvature, I could not, and I tried. It could be a ball with about 100 000km radius, then no curvature would be visible for me here, but all of of the distances we are used to would be 16 times as great: So not likely to be the truth.

The challange is to prove the earth is a ball and not the ball-model explains things "easy to understand with our mind-set" that "Eric is unable to explain in the way it sounds believable with our mind-set".

I surely believe that if all scientists of the world would unite to honestly start tomorrow research the visible phaenomena, within a year we would have the most easy to understand explanations for all phaenomena based on the FE.

Thus, I do not see that your "problem", as interesting it is, does prove anything else but that the ball-earth model delivers, in this aspect, an easy-to-unterstand explanation for a visible phaenomenon.
We do not have a real FE-map!
We do not know whether the sun (moon) stays always in the same high or have some vertical movement as well.

Edward Leedskalin wrote: "the moon holds in the sky because of magnetizm. Gravity does not exist, the electron does not exist, all is about magnetizm". Ed could lift huge stones (several tons in weight) make perfect drills through huge stones that where several meters long, impossible today even with a modern laser!) and claimed to know how the ancients made the pyramids. (He lived 100 years ago in Florida and left the Coral Castle for those interested.)

I never understood how the moon could possible fly around the ball-earth holding by magnetizm! IMPOSSIBLE in the "ball-model!"

So, I think he assumed the FE as well. It might be easy to discover how pyramids were build, once we start to understand that our understanding of the earth is completely "artificial", to explain SOME visible phaenomena, but to hide even the possibility of many others.

I have studied astrophysics and if someone will present a prove for ball-earth, I will happily do the experiements and give my comments to this.

Best wishes
Pastor David

Hi folks

I have an experiment for you that would show exactly whether the earth is a ball or flat.

The more precise it would be made, the less distance is necessary.

Let's imagine how I would set it up here, where I live:

We need: a laser and a mirror as well as two pillars with a precise leveling.

Put one pilar, with the laser, on a high point north of Gran Canaria, looking to the center-mountain of Teneriffe, where, at the same height, the second pillar with the mirror would be mounted and leveled.

Now, the laser would beam it's light to the other pilar and it would be reflected there and go back to the laser-pillar.
About 2x 80km way would be near 2x 0.7 ° of "back-bending" (inclination) and could be easely proved. In case the pillars would be perfectly parallel (exactly vertical leveled) - thus when both exactly level plumb, the earth is flat.

If it is a ball, then the pillars cannot be plumb but would have to show a clearly measurable inclination against the vertical - towards each other.

The closer the two pillars are, the cheaper the laser can be but the more accurate the leveling must be as the inclination would become smaller.

It can be made wherever on earth where there is a long distance without obstancles, like between two mountains or islands.
Wind must not be able to shake the pillars, so they should be relativly short and well fixed on the mountains' sides.

I do not know what appropriate lasers cost, but I can imagine that it would take less than 10 000 USD to make this experiement.

Actually, in case that no inclination would be measurable, the ball-earthers would have a problem, as they believe as well that the light beam is running perfectly straight and in that case there MUST be an measurable inclination.

We could take a distance that equals 1° and any mirror and laser leveling today should be precise in the range of 0.1°, so the precision should be good enough.

In case that an inclination of the ball-earther's prediced size would be measured, FE would be disapproved.

This experiement surely was impossible to conduct a hundred years ago, but should be possible to set up for less than 10 000 USD, Today.

We can look for a crowdfunding to get it done. The same equipment could be used to measure the inclination by different people on different places.

This experiement does not measure any move of the earth, but ball-earthers MUST assume "rotation and movement of the earth", as it is too small for the sun and stars to circle around it, it must circle around the sun and then the day/night must come from self-rotation.

What do you think?

Best wishes
Pastor David

PS: Edited: Upon 2nd thought it might be better to do it with two lasers and no mirror as in 60km distance the spot could be some 100m in diameter.
I will post some theoretical numbers to show that the precision should be enough even if the spot on the other island should be 500m in diameter.
That way, two siliar devices could be used,

Pastor David wrote:Hi folks

I have an experiment for you that would show exactly whether the earth is a ball or flat.

The more precise it would be made, the less distance is necessary.

Let's imagine how I would set it up here, where I live:

We need: a laser and a mirror as well as two pillars with a precise leveling.

Put one pilar, with the laser, on a high point north of Gran Canaria, looking to the center-mountain of Teneriffe, where, at the same height, the second pillar with the mirror would be mounted and leveled.

Now, the laser would beam it's light to the other pilar and it would be reflected there and go back to the laser-pillar.
About 2x 80km way would be near 2x 0.7 ° of "back-bending" (inclination) and could be easely proved. In case the pillars would be perfectly parallel (exactly vertical leveled) - thus when both exactly level plumb, the earth is flat.

If it is a ball, then the pillars cannot be plumb but would have to show a clearly measurable inclination against the vertical - towards each other.

The closer the two pillars are, the cheaper the laser can be but the more accurate the leveling must be as the inclination would become smaller.

It can be made wherever on earth where there is a long distance without obstancles, like between two mountains or islands.
Wind must not be able to shake the pillars, so they should be relativly short and well fixed on the mountains' sides.

I do not know what appropriate lasers cost, but I can imagine that it would take less than 10 000 USD to make this experiement.

Actually, in case that no inclination would be measurable, the ball-earthers would have a problem, as they believe as well that the light beam is running perfectly straight and in that case there MUST be an measurable inclination.

We could take a distance that equals 1° and any mirror and laser leveling today should be precise in the range of 0.1°, so the precision should be good enough.

In case that an inclination of the ball-earther's prediced size would be measured, FE would be disapproved.

This experiement surely was impossible to conduct a hundred years ago, but should be possible to set up for less than 10 000 USD, Today.

We can look for a crowdfunding to get it done. The same equipment could be used to measure the inclination by different people on different places.

This experiement does not measure any move of the earth, but ball-earthers MUST assume "rotation and movement of the earth", as it is too small for the sun and stars to circle around it, it must circle around the sun and then the day/night must come from self-rotation.

What do you think?

Best wishes
Pastor David

PS: Edited: Upon 2nd thought it might be better to do it with two lasers and no mirror as in 60km distance the spot could be some 100m in diameter.
I will post some theoretical numbers to show that the precision should be enough even if the spot on the other island should be 500m in diameter.
That way, two siliar devices could be used,

You're an obvious shill first of all. How would you determine that the, "laser", was accurate/level?

Water proves the Earth is level, it's cognitive dissonance and brainwashing that need to be addressed.

Thank you for attacking me.
Water does not prove anything for ball-earthers. I'm scientist and open for the result.

In case that we assume that light beams are straight (hollow-earthers to not take this as given, but ball-eathers do), we do not need to level horizontally.

All we need to do it to do is to have a laser, a detector of the laser beam and a simple construction.
We have two mountains here and about 80km of distance in between, without endangering anyone by the lasers.

It is quite easy to level the lasers, and when we would make the experiment in more than 1000m height, the air is not so humid and it should be quite clear.

You make a 10 000 Dollar question and when I want to explain the physical experiement that woud proove or disapprove the ball-theory, you attack me that water proves it and all is clear.

Are you interested in an experiment that ball-earthers could NOT deny? A real, scientific repeatable experiement that would yield the same results everywhere?

If all you want is to rant and attack and defend your views like a religious fanatic, I miss-understood the thread.

I will set up a crowdfunding for that, I believe that it should be costing less than 5 000 Dollar to make the devices and I can explain you how they would be aimed at each other, easy.

There HAD to be, without any doubt, an inclination in ball earth model and it must be much bigger than the average mistake in the measuring. So if this inclination is not found and the laser-leveling against the vertical would show 90°, the earth is flat and no scientist could argue against it, other than to say that the laser-beam is NOT straight, the earth's gravavity-field bends the light or some very clear nonsense.

You cannot prove cognitive dissonance to a ball-earther who says the same about you. Only an experiement that can be conducted by "everyone" and many places on the earth is a scientific experimental prove.

Best wishes
David

Pastor David wrote:Thank you for attacking me.
Water does not prove anything for ball-earthers. I'm scientist and open for the result.

In case that we assume that light beams are straight (hollow-earthers to not take this as given, but ball-eathers do), we do not need to level horizontally.

All we need to do it to do is to have a laser, a detector of the laser beam and a simple construction.
We have two mountains here and about 80km of distance in between, without endangering anyone by the lasers.

It is quite easy to level the lasers, and when we would make the experiment in more than 1000m height, the air is not so humid and it should be quite clear.

You make a 10 000 Dollar question and when I want to explain the physical experiement that woud proove or disapprove the ball-theory, you attack me that water proves it and all is clear.

Are you interested in an experiment that ball-earthers could NOT deny? A real, scientific repeatable experiement that would yield the same results everywhere?

If all you want is to rant and attack and defend your views like a religious fanatic, I miss-understood the thread.

I will set up a crowdfunding for that, I believe that it should be costing less than 5 000 Dollar to make the devices and I can explain you how they would be aimed at each other, easy.

There HAD to be, without any doubt, an inclination in ball earth model and it must be much bigger than the average mistake in the measuring. So if this inclination is not found and the laser-leveling against the vertical would show 90°, the earth is flat and no scientist could argue against it, other than to say that the laser-beam is NOT straight, the earth's gravavity-field bends the light or some very clear nonsense.

You cannot prove cognitive dissonance to a ball-earther who says the same about you. Only an experiement that can be conducted by "everyone" and many places on the earth is a scientific experimental prove.

Best wishes
David

This is not an attack.

I do not know if you are a shill or not; but setting up a crowd-funding site to get money to shoot lasers at 1000 meters up in the mountains is the behavior of a shill.

The $10,000 dollar baller challenge is not awarded to those who can provide evidence that the Earth is Flat – it is Jay Decasby’s challenge to ball-earthers to provide reasonably sound evidence that the Earth is round, rotating and that water will adhere to a curved surface with curvature of its own.

If this was a flat Earth evidence challenge, Eric Dubay would have won the $10,000 bucks about 10,000 times over.

Again, this is not an attack, and if you are recommending an experiment, there is a different thread for that at http://ifers.123.st/t136p75-experiments-we-all-can-do

And for the record, I do not think that you are a shill.

Please prove me right.

Hi again!

I have not known about the experiments-page.

My experiement can prove both, flat and ball, as long as one assumes laser-beams to straigth.

The fact that we have one mountain nearly 2km high and another one nearly 4km high, over the ocean, makes it possible to have a setup where near-earth problems, like fog and dust are not present. Even clouds are often below the points we could use.

The one laser points to the other on on the other mountain, the beam does NOT need to be horizontal.
The detector makes it possible to adjust the lasers alike and the measure the inclination against the vertical.
On this scene, about 0.7° inclination would have to be measured for ball earth and that is a lot compared to possible precision of 0.01° and with quite cheap devices possible precision of 0.1°.

It's not an experiment everyone can do just like that, it needs some funding and assembling with precision. But if some ball-earther is convinced enough that my experiment would prove him right, I think I cac conduct it for far less than 10 000 $, so Eric would have to pay him more then he would spend.
In case the experiement would prove the earth is flat, he would lose some $, but gain insight...

But as the idea to make this measuring might be apealing to many and I do not need so much money to make it, less than 10 000$, crowdfunding might be a possible way.

I will explain the experiment - where-ever is the right place on this forum-, in detail, after Christmas, so you can see the effect to measure is much higher than the average measuring mistake and there would be no discussion with ball-earther afterwards.

Anyway, I'm not asking Eric to pay me anything and I did not put it here to say that it will prove ball-earth.
I just thought it's a possible, easy, not esxpensive experiement to get a definite, not discutable answer to the question whether there is an inclination (ball-earth) or not (flat earth) and I was not aware of a better place on the forum to post that.

Best wishes
Pastor David

Hi Pastor David , here's how to determine the shape of  the earth  .

    Lake Baikal in Siberia freezes during the winter -395 miles of level ice - acknowledged as the largest flat area in the world when it freezes I am led to believe ( no matter if it isn't since observation will reveal the fact or otherwise) .
Stand on the ice at night at the southern end and using a precision optical instrument measure the elevation to the pole star.

Repeat the observation at the northern end .

   If your degree of elevation to the pole star is the same at both locations then you must be standing on a flat plane on a globe and the pole star must be at an infinite distance since the light rays are parallel to each other over that distance of  300 mls - all globe theory .

  If your degree of elevation rises at the northern end then you must be standing on a flat plane with a pole star which is near enough to give that change of angle of degree of elevation observing the light from the pole star .

 This one experiment will prove whether the pole pole star is near or far and remove the deception of one or the other. No gps required , just pure scientific observation with conclusions then based on results .

  You could check whether Baikal is also flat if you wish ( I would ) and you could also use any of the  acknowledged flat areas of the world but lake Baikal would be the choice for me since the size would mean that any difference in pole star elevation would be easily apparent even with less accurate instruments .
 
Sorry for posting this on what is probably the wrong  thread but it is a reply to Pastor David . I'd love to carry this out myself one day God willing .

Hello there

I already thought about a way to know about it : it's about going far for Earth, and check range between two geostationary items.
Since we know where they are located on Earth, if we can get the range we can know if the range there in space is the same as the range on Earth is the same that it is flat.

I drew a 'simple' schema


Some people already did this job, checking between Turksat2 and Turksat3.
Problem is : they are both at 42°E meridian.

You can check the details of this in this PDF : Optical_monitoring_of_inter_satellite_distance_between_Turksat-2A_And_Turksat-3A (sorry, I have no right to post the link)

If you can find the same between two other 'more ranged' geosat, you should have an answer.

Julianstouch wrote:
geostationary [satellites]
there in space

Ball Earth
"provide measurable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence" for:
a). the curvature
b). the motion (spinning)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invoking the man-made construct called "Space" to look for "Geostationary [satellites]" does not fulfill the two requirements above.

Satelites are nothing more than a fictional invention of Arthur C Clark.

Why all the back and forth about proof? Light reflection is all you need. Physics of light reflection on a curved vs a flat surface. You see any hot spots all over earth reflecting the sunlight/moonlight?? You see pillar reflections is what you see and those arent PHYSICALLY possible on a curved surface. Game, Set, Match, Flat Earth. Natural Physics will win the argument EVERY TIME.