Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: FinallyAwake

That's true. But after 78 pages I am still waiting for a proof the Earth is 'round'. All the proofs exhibited assume you are not a blind observer. How would you prove Earth is round if you were blind? How would you prove to yourself Earth is round if you were blind and deaf?

There must be a proof regardless of the observer. There must be a proof for any kind of observers...

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: FinallyAwake

That's true. But after 78 pages I am still waiting for a proof the Earth is 'round'. All the proofs exhibited assume you are not a blind observer. How would you prove Earth is round if you were blind? How would you prove to yourself Earth is round if you were blind and deaf?

There must be a proof regardless of the observer. There must be a proof for any kind of observers...

Education you would have to teach them say physics. And explain why things work the way they do. Here the simplest truth the earth being round and being a planet in our solar system explains everything. Flat earth they can't even get their models to work with each other much less explain everything.

a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks for the video! However, your video explains why the Earth is not flat. It doesn't explain why it is round.

One test relies on rainbows, but as I said, my observer is blind. No rainbows. Another one is based on flying over the North Pole and observing there are no walls... Again, my observer is blind. Reason third is about Earth's curvature related to hulls of ships disappearing before masts do. Again, my observer is blind: she cannot see the horizon, neither the ships, nor their hulls, nor their masts.

Reason fourth has to do with Earth and Moon and the exact prediction of their orbits through observations. My observer is blind: no suns, no moons for her. Reason fifth is about going/not going to Mars. I confess I didn't get what they mean. In any case, could my blind observer be aware on the existence of Mars? Reason sixth involves taking photographs of Earth from space. Again, my observer is blind, so pics are of no use to her.

Reason seventh is about weather balloons flying to the stratosphere. This is the most hilarious one, for the non-flatter states that a proof Earth is a sphere is precisely because the stratosphere is called stratosphere, and not stratosflat... Lol!

All in all, seriously, if you use that video to show someone Earth is not flat, you will certainly get him/her concluding Earth is neither flat, not round. A pity they didn't mention Foucault's pendulum. Anyway, my observer is blind, so not a single one of the proofs presented in the video will convince her Earth is round. The question remains: how would you proof to a blind and deaf observer that Earth is round?

a reply to: Direne

Short of finding a way to explain gravity and tossing them out the plane with or without chute depending on if you like them.


I guess if they are deaf and blind they probably wouldnt care either way well except for the being tossed out a plane part.

a reply to: dragonridr

But dragonridr, that would only prove that you would return to the starting point. Now two possibilities arise: either Earth is round, or... it is a Moebius band. It certainly proves it is not flat, something my observer agrees with, but it does not prove it is round.

It was in the opening post…

Anyway.

It all started about 2000 years ago.

He realized that if he knew the distance from Alexandria to Syene, he could easily calculate the circumference of Earth. But in those days it was extremely difficult to determine distance with any accuracy. Some distances between cities were measured by the time it took a camel caravan to travel from one city to the other. But camels have a tendency to wander and to walk at varying speeds. So Eratosthenes hired bematists, professional surveyors trained to walk with equal length steps. They found that Syene lies about 5000 stadia from Alexandria.

Eratosthenes then used this to calculate the circumference of the Earth to be about 250,000 stadia. Modern scholars disagree about the length of the stadium used by Eratosthenes. Values between 500 and about 600 feet have been suggested, putting Eratosthenes’ calculated circumference between about 24,000 miles and about 29,000 miles. The Earth is now known to measure about 24,900 miles around the equator, slightly less around the poles.

www.aps.org...

Flat Earth and Refraction with Oil Platforms Hillhouse and Habitat

www.metabunk.org...

Oil rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara give us some great opportunities to view the curve of the Earth. But they also provide great opportunities for refraction to confuse the issue. How do we know it's not just refraction on a flat earth that just LOOKS round? I've added the oil-rigs to my refraction simulator, so people can experiment with what refraction is capable of doing. Also to demonstrate that you can't actually make a Flat Earth look round with refraction.

An oversimplification.
But it is documented light refraction bends light so objects over the horizon can be seen.

But the oil rig at sea is a more accurate account because of water finding it’s level, and the surface of the sea literally maintain sea level, vs the chaos of land above sea level. And it’s changed is elevation.

And the oil rig account holds true to the cited experiments below.

Spherical earth wins again through experimentation. No room for your “illusions”....

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

Nice try, But flat earth looses against actual data, measurements, and standards.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: FinallyAwake

That's true. But after 78 pages I am still waiting for a proof the Earth is 'round'. All the proofs exhibited assume you are not a blind observer. How would you prove Earth is round if you were blind? How would you prove to yourself Earth is round if you were blind and deaf?

There must be a proof regardless of the observer. There must be a proof for any kind of observers...

If you want to play that game. How would YOU prove to a “ blind and deaf” person there is a moon, lunar eclipses, and planets like Jupiter.

Then we could use your “wisdom” to help prove the earth is round……

a reply to: Direne

If your observer is not able to take reliable measurements themselves, you get someone who is able to take them do that, and then explain the process clearly in a way that makes it very obvious how those measurrments were taken and what they mean - ideally not using pointless stoner philosophy in so doing.

It's how science works.

a reply to: neutronflux

As you know, blindness results from problems in the eyes and in the optic nerves, and not in the brain, hence my observer has a fully functional brain she can use to make inferences. The problem I am describing has to do not with whether the Earth is flat, round, a torus, or a Moebius band. it has to do with the very concept of "observer" and its role in science. Actually, physics requires no observers at all: there is no requirement for observers to exist for physics to exist. The laws of physics are independent from any observer. In a Universe without any life forms, physics still rules.

My point was that we shouldn't use proofs that strongly depend on 'ideal observers'. A person blind since birth has never had the experience of seeing images originating from the external world and therefore has never formed visual memories connected to the external world. Any proof of Earth being round, or at least not being flat, shouldn't depend on ships, rainbows, shadows, and any effect that must be visually observed. That would go contrary to science. It would be a science just for the sighted, excluding those who are blind.

A for my observer, she is blind, but this doesn't mean she cannot be a radioastronomer, or design and use all the equipment, devices, and instrumentation to explore her environment. Be confident she is perfectly able to get an idea about how Reality is configured as good as the one of a sighted scientist. Using radioastronomy she can infer the existence of planets, their orbital mechanics, and all of the properties about objects a sighted observer can measure. If she wanted to know whether Earth is flat or not, it suffices for her to perform some experiments with cosmic rays to prove the Earth’s direction of motion through the galaxy is upwards from the ground in one place, while simultaneously downwards into the ground from a different point on the opposite side of the planet. She simply uses the Compton-Getting anisotropy measurement for cosmic rays and will conclude this distribution is perfectly consistent with a spherical planet, but inconsistent with a flat Earth.

And she can do it despite her being blind. That was the point of my question: that we shouldn't assume observers out there are universally of one single kind.


a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

If your observer is not able to take reliable measurements themselves

I'm sure you do not really believe blind people are unable to take reliable measurements... do you???

If your blind truthseeker were to measure and total the angles from three relatively distant points on Earth she would realise the sum of the angles is greater than 180 degrees. This is proof the Earth is a sphere and it can be duplicated all over the Earth, just to prove that this is not a local phenomena.

This experiment is over 1000 years old and has been repeated hundreds of times to the same result, so maybe that's not enough for a flatearther's brain just yet.

a reply to: Direne

Ok. And what does that have to do with my post…

If you want to play that game. How would YOU prove to a “ blind and deaf” person there is a moon, lunar eclipses, and planets like Jupiter.

Then we could use your “wisdom” to help prove the earth is round……

a reply to: Direne

You

Using radioastronomy she can infer the existence of planets, their orbital mechanics, and all of the properties about objects a sighted observer can measure

How would they know it was actually measuring such things?

And how would you convey lunar eclipses actually occur, and are not fantasy.

No matter who you are, it still takes a certain amount of faith what is being referred to or being observed is true.

If you a blind person has a more accurate model of the solar system than the heliocentric model, by all means share it?

a reply to: Direne

This guy is a bit of a legend and hero

Blind kayaker braves New River’s vaunted rapids
John McCoy Jul 2, 2017 Updated Nov


www.wvgazettemail.com...

Two guides accompany Bedwell whenever he’s on the river. One paddles a boat length or two ahead of him, and the other paddles a similar distance behind.

“They call directions to me — ‘Give me a 2 o’clock bow angle.’ ‘Hard left.’ ‘Hard right.’ ‘Charge,’” he said. “But even with their directions, there are times I’m going to tip over. I might be going over the peak of a wave, reach down for water and get nothing but air. Or maybe I get into a hole and can’t see which way to lean.”

Bedwell Is very brave to do what he does. But it takes a bit of help and faith in others.

Science is really no different.

I am not saying not to validate items for yourself.

And if Bedwell wanted to find a way to prove to himself to confirm the earth was spherical, he could do it.

The question to you is, why would someone like Bedwell believe a fantasy like there is a massive lie and coverup to hind the earth isn’t spherical?

Are we really any different than blind individuals.

It comes down to the fact the heliocentric model for anyone understanding science is the most accurate model we have for calculation any number of things like satellites and radio astronomy.

The fact someone can use radio astronomy, and not be impacted by a water layer or crystal dome above the earth in the fantasy flat earth model. And is finding planets and stars at there text book locations, distances, and paths goes a long way to answering your own question…..

So your own argument makes your own point moot.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Direne

Ok. And what does that have to do with my post…

If you want to play that game. How would YOU prove to a “ blind and deaf” person there is a moon, lunar eclipses, and planets like Jupiter.

Then we could use your “wisdom” to help prove the earth is round……

And the game could be turned around to be "What proof could you give a blind person that the Earth is flat?"

There's a point when the blind person, bereft of being able to make the visual observations that may be necessary to discern that Earth is spheroid, simply needs to learn about how the physical world works in general, then apply that knowledge to figure out for themselves what the shapes of planets would be.

Spoiler alert: He or she will come to the educated conclusion that Earth is a sphere.


Granted, they might argue that Earth is special and not like normal planets, and might still be flat. In that case, tell the blind person to travel to what their knowledge tells them is the "edge" of the flat earth and then feel for themselves what the force of gravity is there.

From what they should have learned about the effects of gravity, they would be able to realize that it is impossible for Earth to be a disk and have the effect of gravity to be generally homogenous on the entire surface.

a reply to: muzzleflash

you know some wars would still be raging if we didnt use the calculations for the earths rotation and curvature in long range naval artillery, submarines also use the curvature of the earth to hide from enemy ships.

there are millions of things we use every day that would not work if we live on a flat earth

it still baffles me why people assign their energy to this dead end

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The point here is that muzzleflash titled his/her OP as Absolute proof the Earth is round , and what I'm pointing out is that no proof can be absolute if it relies on senses like the sense of sight. You don't need the sense of sight to learn Earth is round. Actually, you don't need the sense of sight to even do astrophysics or astronomy.

There were, and are, scientists who are/were blind persons or were visually impaired, like Dominique-Francois Arago (1786-1853), director until his death of the powerful nineteenth-century Paris Observatory. You also have Mrs. Wanda Díaz Merced, an expert in gamma-ray bursts; you also have Mr. Lev Pontryagin, who lost his eyesight at the age of 14, and whose work is used in the study of the large-scale structure of the Universe. And you also have Euler, by the way, who went blind at the age of 50, yet some of his discoveries after that are extremely useful in astrophysics.

So no, muzzleflash proof is not absolute proof . Note that I'm not here talking about Earth being flat (obviously nobody believes Earth is flat); rather, I'm pointing out no absolute proof should be based on human senses at all. Otherwise you will be doing human sciences , and that would be extremely... short-sighted.

a reply to: Direne

Well i disagree proof can be absolute. Your discussing someone ability to confirm it. Yes there are some that cannot confirm but thats not how science works. Science is only concerned with physical reality and if it can be replicated consistantly, For example if we find one instant of things falling up it will invalidate gravity.

a reply to: Direne

Well, I think my idea about the blind person going to what flat earther's call the edge of the Earth and then measuring the force and direction of gravity for themselves would do the trick.

If course, they would need to use an instrument they could read despite their impairment. And they would also need to understand how the effect of gravity manifests itself, which is something they could learn by studying Newton.

In the flat Earth model, gravity at the edge of the earth-disk would not be perpendicular to the ground and it would be far greater than what is called normal. It would be different enough for them to feel even without measuring it with an instrument, and whether they're blind or not.

a reply to: dragonridr

"Your discussing someone ability to confirm it."

Yes, you are right, that is one aspect of what I'm discussing. Reality cannot depend on the ability of observers to confirm results; actually, Reality does not need observers at all. You can have a Universe without observers. No experiments can be carried out, I admit. However, what about a Universe with just one observer? And what if that observer is deaf and blind? Could she still be able to infer physical laws as we know them? My answer is a positive one:
yes, she can.

"Science is only concerned with physical reality"

Sure, I agree. But physical reality predates science: it does not need scientists, that is, it does not need observers making measurements and running experiments.

"if we find one instant of things falling up it will invalidate gravity."

I see what you mean, however, things can 'fall up" if the observer is located in the center of a rotating frame of reference, where centrifugal force is at work. Imagine you live at the center of a spinning washing machine... what would you say about falling down?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

"Well, I think my idea about the blind person going to what flat earther's call the edge of the Earth and then measuring the force and direction of gravity for themselves would do the trick."

Yes, you are right, it will do the trick. Though if my observer reaches the edge of the flat Earth, obviously she would automatically learn the Earth is not round because round planets have no edges.

I agree with you in that "gravity at the edge of the earth-disk would not be perpendicular to the ground".
However, we could design a flat Earth spinning on its orthogonal axis, and in that case gravity will point to the center of the flat Earth, and there would be no way to discern any difference between a spherical Earth and a flat spinning Earth for this particular experiment. Spinning and rotating frames of reference can trick and mislead observers.

a reply to: turbonium1

Any better answers to what causes tides. tidal bores and rivers flowing backward during high tide, why placing a weight from a hanging spring scale causes the spring to extend from a force in accordance with Hooke’s law always down towards earth, what cause water drops to overcome cohesion and adhesive forces to run down windows when they gain sufficient weight, why bridges have weight limits, how potential energy of gravity is concentrated to kinetic energy than the downward force called gravity,


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Funny.

I can cite formulas that use values for mass and gravity, and they result in accurate reliable calculations that apply to real world situations.

Funny, they seem to not be dependent on density.

Like the below?

Converting Between Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy


courses.lumenlearning.com...

Gravitational potential energy may be converted to other forms of energy, such as kinetic energy. If we release the mass, gravitational force will do an amount of work equal to mgh on it, thereby increasing its kinetic energy by that same amount (by the work-energy theorem). We will find it more useful to consider just the conversion of PEg to KE without explicitly considering the intermediate step of work. (See Example 2.) This shortcut makes it is easier to solve problems using energy (if possible) rather than explicitly using forces.

More precisely, we define the change in gravitational potential energy ΔPEg to be ΔPEg = mgh, where, for simplicity, we denote the change in height by h rather than the usual Δh. Note that h is positive when the final height is greater than the initial height, and vice versa. For example, if a 0.500-kg mass hung from a cuckoo clock is raised 1.00 m, then its change in gravitational potential energy is

m
g
h
=
(
0.500
kg
)
(
9.80
m/s
2
)
(
1.00
m
)

=
4.90
kg
⋅
m
2
/s
2
=
4.90
J
mgh = (0.500 kg)(9.80
m/s
2
)(1.00 m) = 4.90 kg⋅
m
2
/s
2
=4.90 J

Note that the units of gravitational potential energy turn out to be joules, the same as for work and other forms of energy. As the clock runs, the mass is lowered. We can think of the mass as gradually giving up its 4.90 J of gravitational potential energy, without directly considering the force of gravity that does the work.

Exactly where was the term density in the calculation to covert potential energy of gravity to kinetic energy?