And by the way clearly most areas of the planet have elevations here and there. If you choose the location you perform experiments/observations conveniently, always a bit elevated compared to nearby areas or the target observed, you will have the ability to see targets appear higher than the curvature would force them to be. If i look at Eiffel tower not from the ground level (sea level say) but from a nearby hill or from a high rise apartment it will offer the illusion there is no curvature (ie not dropping enough). Also often the target itself is on elevated ground overall etc. This is why one needs to be very clean when making such measurements and try to select over 50km distance cases where both locations are not elevated from sea level expecting at least 200m changes or use ships with well known dimensions even better if they have 3 big masts say with known details to look for and apply a telescope or binoculars etc (do not use tankers, cruise ships etc because you do not know their dimensions and cannot use proper reference points like with a full rigged classic/old ship). Its best to take averages in such experiments from different equidistant vantage points anyway. Also keep in mind some refraction effects too may impact results.

But the real issue is this. We can obviously videochat with RiverFenix or anyone challenging and perform simultaneous experiments of shadows of eg 1m vertical rods during noon say in different locations that have significantly different latitude (northern states or Canada vs southern states or Mexico say or other European locations). How will RiverFenix explain the different shadow lengths at the same time? Also again i want an explanation that is bs free of the day/night cycle and the seasons and the difference in duration of day and night during the year. If the sun is above a flat area it will always appear visible by all points of the plane. How do you explain that away? How do you explain what the sun does in the largest day of the year at the north pole for example when it appears to slightly drop to touch the horizon and then come back up. What will you do, force the sun light to be coming from inside a cone on some bizarre trajectory changing all the time? A giant cone is covering the sun and the whole thing is rotating around the plane in a trajectory that magically changes during the year without explanation ie force the sun to be on a very strange curve (how can you have that with what force field?).

Also how do you explain the eclipses and the solar radiation intensity level observed on earth plus the temperature of the sun and black body radiation total power emission etc all matching. What do i mean by that? The temperature of the sun can be estimated by the light received (eg visible spectrum relative distribution) (the black body distribution curve over various frequencies/wavelengths). See next chart;



The radius and therefore area of the sun can be estimated from astronomical observations and the 2 kind of eclipses. Then based on that one can estimate using Stefan Boltzmann law the net power output of the sun and therefore the intensity of the radiation in our neighborhood of the solar system (eg 1400W/m^2 estimated) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%...3Boltzmann_law). We then observe/measure that in upper atmosphere at about 1400 W/m^2 (changing during the year by the way exactly as expected by our trajectory around the sun) and its about 1000-1100W/m^2 i think on the surface. The fact its measured near 1400 just outside atmosphere as estimated beforehand proves exactly consistent with the sun being 150 mil km away and having the radius it has (700000km) and the temperature it has 5800K ie things independently known before we measured the local intensity. The intensity measurement that matches the prediction confirms the entire solar system story! Another coincidence?

How does RiverFenix explain that the southern sky has different stars than the northern one if the disk sees the same sky by all looking up in the only world visible in that side (how about the other side by the way, other people/life etc there we never met?). Eg you have the north star and you have the southern cross.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux


How does he explain the fact that there is precession of the equinoxes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession. What causes that? How about the historical fact that ancients described stars in different locations than today (slowly changing ie different north star over time etc).

How about the tides? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

How do you have that on flat non rotating earth the way it does happen on our earth (periods etc) ?

How do you explain also Doppler effects due to the rotation of earth or the motion within the solar system even
See here more on the anisotropy correction issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background

and papers on some satellite observation measurements experiencing Doppler shifts in other areas of observation.

http://satelliteconferences.noaa.gov...er52_ychen.pdf

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/itsc...gs/A08_Han.pdf

(one can argue satellites etc are all lies lol but do they play perfectly the conspiracy to introduce also Doppler shifts that people werent initially aware of in their theories related to the data gathering of those satellites, requiring future papers to explain it lol ? How totally elaborate like a perfect master brainiac plan to appear so convincing. The con job of the ages.)


Here is another one to explain away rejecting the rotation around the sun etc;

The famous first astronomical attempt to measure the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8...speed_of_light

(it requires of course the trajectory of earth around the sun in order to work and estimate reasonably well for its time the speed of light for the first time and establish its finite)

Last chance for RiverFenix is to have a child that was given an assignment at school due in a few weeks, maybe by late April or early May to argue for earth being spherical and rotating etc and he tried a sneaky way to accumulate material for the child instead of being direct about it.


PS: How do you explain the General Relativity prediction of the Perihelion precession of Mercury with a sun that is not where it is estimated to be or as large and Mercury at its radius? How do you explain the other tests of General Relativity with some bs earthcentric system? How about the trajectories of the other planets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

The fact is tests of gravitational redshift is another way to test the earth is round fact because it requires Schwarzschild geometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric (ie spherically symmetric solution, no disk crap)
All this of course is like killing an ant with a tank strike lol. But you kill the poor thing anyway lol!

He can explain everything with complete scientific falsehoods like he has the entire thread or that it's photo shopped.

masque,

I don't know if it's because he's trolling or legitimately nutty, but it's impossible that RF will agree with anything here ever.

Some people are learning stuff from your posts though, so it's all good.

I understand you are in Physics. Are you a PhD student, grad, professor? At Stanford?

The earth must be surprisingly young, because if I worked my calculator right, we would be exceeding the speed of light in less than 1000 years.

You don't know what you're missing.

You got me, but I guess that wasn't what RF was saying anyway.

The whole system (flat earth, moon, and sun) could be rotating around a central point and have constant accelleration with a constant absolute value of velocity.

Would have to be held by a string or something with no gravity. Could be thrusters on the bottom and sides of the earth.

I have been all these things minus the professor before. I will remain forever a student of Physics and one of best friends a true brave revolution can ever have. Even if it goes against everything established at some level, requiring retracing and reframing of our concepts of the world, as long as its all in an honest self reflecting manner. Skepticism is healthy but it requires integrity to be done properly. There is something more important than "my team" to be winning in any debate. The truth to be winning. To be worthy of belonging to the winning team.

Lets say for example that in a way i also think gravity is not a force. But not in that way seen here. Current theories work well up to a point. They will not be proven dead wrong (not now that we have advanced as much). They will only show us the limits of the framework that created them if we keep exploring them with novel experiments and theoretical investigations of their consistency and consequencies. There are real monsters in modern Physics but they do not have to do with the core well tested things (possibly with how we view those precious things though eg things like geometry, objective reality, concepts taken for granted as fundamental while they could be emergent).

The monsters are in fact trying to do exactly what this flat disk model is trying to do by introducing all kinds of complicated processes to fit data, never predicting something original, always evading a genuinely brave but economical reframing. Sometimes you need to go through the monsters to get to the truth though, to force an idea to reach its time, like the example of Ptolemaic epicyles system proved or the concept of absolute time or flat geometry in Relativity or even the notion of objective reality in quantum mechanics.

At the heart of every revolution seems to be the abandonment of something held precious before in order to obtain something more universal and capable of expanding our awareness/perspective, liberating us further from the intuitive trap of our senses as macroscopic beings, products of our own environment which is continuously shaping our perceptions of the world, even our philosophy.

If that's the case, good thing NASA never really landed on the moon. The apparent "gravity" would be the same there as here on earth and the small rocket motors on the lunar lander would never be powerful enough to do the job.

You know I'm not a flat earther right? I was just trying to answer what I thought RF's explanation was.

All space exploration pretty much has to be discounted as a hoax if you're a flat earther - which I'm not.

So what you are saying is that you are not a flat-earther?

Hey Masque after looking at the neutrino evidence I dont see how you can say it conclusively proves a RE. I asked you specifically if the neutrino test could be replicated on a FE and you flat out lied saying it couldnt. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination or understanding of the test but here is how the test works for both FE & RE.

From Point A the shots are fired at a downward angle X to location B. Location B is deep below the earth as to not have cosmic interference. As long as B is significantly deep enough and angle X isn't too great then neutrinos from A can easily be detected in B.

In your link it clearly shows that despite the average mean of angle being 3.4degrees there are a great amount of events between -10-20 degrees. Taking into account that the arriving neutrino beam being over 1km wide and CERN being located significantly above sea level. How can you declare this to both be a definite proof of a RE and an impossible test for a FE?

For someone who is intent on teaching you sure do get butt hurt quickly. All these questions are irrelevant to the observational proof I have offered you that the Earth cannot be round as described.

1) Read the thread, I do not claim to know this. How could I even figure it out, the deepest hole ever drilled is 8 miles.
2) Irrelevant.
3) Have you not looked at the flat earth map? Have you forgotten the shortest distance between two places is a line?

4) Why are you so interested in making this about money? If someone could prove to me the Earth is round they'd be doing a great service to humanity.
5) I'd like to see hundreds of videos of the Earth spinning from space. Can you find me even one?
6) How much wood could a woodchuck chuck? Do you not understand why your question is superfluous?

Regarding the hammer vs feather video.

The distance it would travel is:
0.5 x [lunar] gravity x time x time = 0.5 x (9.8/6) x 1.1 x 1.1 = 0.99.

Thus the hammer could not have fallen a distance of more than 99cms, or 0.99m.

David Scott’s height is clearly taller than Armstrong (who is 5’11”) by several inches. David Scott is also wearing ‘Moon Boots’. The hammer is dropped by David Scott from shoulder height, easily 150cms, or 1.50m. This is not possible. David Scott cannot have been standing on the Moon when he dropped the hammer.

However, if we assume that NASA did indeed film the action on Earth then halved the speed, the distance the hammer would travel is:

0.5 x [earth] gravity x time x time = 0.5 x 9.8 x 0.55 x 0.55 = 1.48m = 148cms.

So far Masque has offered up these proofs of a RE and I have refuted all of them.
Foucaults Pendulum
Coriolis Effect
Neutrino Test
Hammer vs Feather test

He hasnt acknowledged that the first two cannot prove a RE given the anomalies that they exhibit and likely won't concede any additional points but I'll continue to rebuke what is clearly, flagrantly invalid proof of a RE. He's making a stronger case than everyone else so who knows how this will end up.

The detector is only some 10-15m height. Obviously its fine tuned to match the beam average to maximize detection frequency. That beam is indeed going inside the crust (see the paper pic) at at least 3 deg it would seem from the arc and their statements that it goes at low as 11km which matches the 730 km chord length. I dont care what the neutrinos that are off the target do. I only care about those that get there to be detected when they interact. Those all clearly left their generation point at CERN with an avg angle of -3deg in order to arrive there at the same angle near surface. The beam is going into the ground at an angle and coming out also at an angle. If the system was flat there would be either a much smaller angle (for undeground targets) or 0 flat parallel to the flat surface.

But i already told you there is a time of flight that is recorded and they travel at near c so if they were going in a flat system ie the distance on the surface between the 2 points that would be larger than the chord length and they would take more time. Essentially they travel for a time that is less than the surface distance time.

You realize that even if something is 1km deep in the ground to reach it in a flat world you only need an angle with sine of (1/730) or 0.08deg far smaller than 3 deg.

I dont not see what your problem is. They cannot avoid having to force the avg of the beam to be going down at at least near 3 deg angle. If the world was flat going in at 3deg would take the avg at 730*sin3~38km below surface!!!

You're saying that when the Earth was poured into a pan it created an uneven mound surface? Don't you mean flatter when you say studied by researchers? What exactly is the pan that the material is being poured into?

Looking for some clarification...

How far below the Earth is the detector?
The neutrino spread is 1km wide by the time and shows hits from angles of -10-20 degrees.

Yeah I've done the trig too.

RF since when you little AE@#$%$ is North America only like half the area of the South and 1/3 of Africa? Who the f are you kidding here with this garbage map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

North America 24.5 mil km^2, South 17.8 mil km^2 , Africa 30.4 mil km^2

Australia is larger than Europe easily as seen on the map when in reality its 9/10 of Europe.

So your map is not a faithful representation of the surface areas. It is a projection that desnt preserve areas. So go f your map. The lines in your map are not geodesics even because then Australia to South America's southern end would take forever to travel in a straight line (forced to go through north pole even lol) larger in length than most other point to point trips when in reality its a small trip even if you go to Africa first which you dont have to if you do it with a jet fighter or spy plane.

You propose a theory that you have no clue what the depth of the disk is lol. Can it be infinite? What would be g then? It needs to be at least 2000km it would seem to begin to have near same g and its behavior wouldnt be 1/(r+h)^2 with h the altitude from the ground.

You are not answering anything just mentally masturbating in front of an audience.



You still havent provided any example of what it would take for you to be convinced its spherical and you avoided a ton of examples i offered that your model cannot explain.

FWIW, that map is an azimuthal equidistant projection, which is not garbage, and in fact quite quite widely used:



(Note that I passed up the opportunity to make a UN - FE joke there.) The trick is that the map only preserves distances from the center. Everything else is distorted (for reasons which I presume are obvious).

He could prove it's flat by going to one end of Kansas, placing a laser at a specified altitude above sea level, and firing it at the other end of Kansas, where a detector at the same altitude would detect the shot. It shouldn't be too hard to find a channel throughout Kansas with no buildings or other impediments.

Sun is much closer to Earth, probably a few hundred miles away. It moves from Tropic to Tropic on its seasonal orbit (is there a better word? I didnt know it implied gravitation).

This video explains everything very well Sun related.

My laser only goes 10 miles which is good enough for tests to show no curvature. If someone wants to spend 1k they can find a laser that goes 100 miles.

You do know that if you spend the $1k and prove your theory right you would make millions. Seems silly of you not to go through with it, but then again this is a thread about a flat earth... so you know... it's probably crazy to do it.

Yeah well I was pretty hammered so whatever