People are so wedded to the globe model, it’s almost as sacred to them as Satan Claus. If you dare to prick the bubble you get pounded because you are destroying a deep seated psychological fantasy, extinguishing the spark of magic so they rebel.
I am sorry that my parents are no longer here, I am sure that the evidence would’ve convinced them… with a little kitten nudging.
I must admit, I have found the visceral reaction by some upon the broaching of this topic quite curious. Particularly amongst the truther community, if we were(are) stuck inside a real life Hunger Games against our will, you'd think they would be the first that would want to know.
it’s probably some sort of anchoring effect, like a three leg stool supporting a worldview… dare to kick out one leg and everything collapses… so it’s a primal defense mechanism to protect it (worldview/universe) at any/all costs
I'll keep an open mind, kitten, but I'm not quite ready for FE yet :). I have to say one thing that irritates me a little is calling it FE. Flat is a planar attribute, why doesn't the theory refer to its three-dimensional shape?
I agree with you Petra, the term FE is inarticulate and can often hinder serious intellectual discussion about the nature of creation. And thanks to that blatant controlled op outfit, the Flat Earth Society, so many people have the absurd conception of the Flat Earth as a pizza pie flying through space.
OK, I'm not quite sure what that describes but I'm going to leave it there for the moment.
BTW, Scipio, did you read my post, Blood and bandages: are they real?, because it refers to Gaza? Actually, taking a quick look back at your article I see I should link to it and I think one of your images would be very useful. Going to bed now. Good night.
maybe if the world governments military presence in Antarctica didn’t prevent independent research we could precisely map the true shape in detail. alas, no such luck … you have to question why the security is so tight there, what are they colluding to protect at all costs?
On that subject I have no clue but I'd imagine that even without Antarctica whatever shape the earth is should be able to be worked out assuming it's not a sphere as generally believed. According to ChatGPT it only occupies 2.7% of the earth's surface. Of course, if the earth isn't at all what we believe it to be then this figure doesn't necessarily mean much.
Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent on Earth, covering an area of approximately 14 million square kilometers (about 5.4 million square miles). With the total surface area of Earth being around 510 million square kilometers (about 196.9 million square miles), Antarctica occupies roughly 2.7% of the Earth's surface.
I appreciate my brother for all the hard work and effort and putting boots on the ground actually getting out there and putting his money where his mouth is. we should all be so passionate for the truth and pursue it vigorously. 👊💥💯
Not everyone will agree with Scipio on all points but we should be impressed with his efforts and I applaud him as a writer and thinker. Always leave your mind open!👏
We were conditioned to lean on the man-worshipping wisdom and pride of the world's scientistic religion (babylon). The path to life is to become "fools" in the eyes of the pagans and find freedom.
If the earth is a flat plane not a spinning spheroid in the infinite vacuum of the universe orbiting a star named Solaris, then "space" itself is most probably a psyop. So all those science fiction writers who I grew up reading - Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke - were full of it. Have Spacesuit Will Travel. The Rings of Saturn. A Fall of Moondust. Fantasies. Guys, how could you do this to a teenage brain full of wonder? 😄
So, the fact that I can see Melbourne city buildings across Port Phillip Bay from a distance of at least 40km is not enough proof? I’m revisiting your work as I just got my hands on a Nikon p1000 and want to get all of my facts straight before I start sharing my footage.
I avidly gobble up all your work. However I do not find this piece convincing.
1. Your refraction calculations are dubious. In particular:
(a) the calulator you have linked to does not perform any calculation giving the result you imply it generated. This calculator is at least performing the type of calculation you need to perform: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/snells-law, however even this will not perform the exact calculation you need which is actually quite complicated because the refraction is occurring continually over the entire distance and thus you cannot simply calculate a single change in direction at an interface.
(b) you mention only the relative speed of light in air and vacuum as inputs to your calculation, but it appears you have entirely ignored (actually it's hard to know what you have ignored since you provide no working for your claimed refraction calculation).
- the angle of graze (refraction is greater at very shallow angles), at least the calculator you link to does not account for this
- the temperature gradient
- the density/humidity gradient
- beam divergence (lasers diverge by ~1m per km) which ensures that the beam traverses the air immediately adjacent to the surface of the water (rather than a meter or so higher) where there is a very tiny layer with a much higher density gradient than even a foot or two higher.
The temperature and density gradients are typically fairly low, except immediately above large bodies of warm water when they can be very significant. You have performed this experiment very close to the surface of a large body of water in what might be the most humid part of the USA - Florida's gulf coast.
2. There are many other pieces of evidence for a spherical earth. One of the strongest is navigation. If the earth is not a sphere all the distances between points in the Southern hemisphere would be incorrect. This is the type of information that really would require a huge number of people to be "in on it" - every airline pilot and ship's captain who ever navigates in the southern hemisphere in fact - the sort of conspiracy which would be impossible to pull off. Another piece of evidence is the apparent height of distant objects such as tall buildings, cliffs, mountains or even trees (this is a much better, and simpler, test than the laser tests you describe - the problem for flat earthers is that these tests are simple for anyone to check and the results clearly show curvature).
Thank you for your continued engagement with my work Horace, even when we don't see eye to eye. I appreciate your critique, as it allows for a deeper exploration of the methodology and conditions involved. Let me address the key points you’ve raised in your several comments on this post.
Firstly, let me clarify that the calculations provided in the original BC article were indeed rough estimates based on open source data, but even more precise calculations do not explain our findings, as I will discuss shortly. We had the camera and laser positioned several feet above the water precisely to avoid the temperature gradient you speak of, as I annotated in my calculations. This was not done hovering over the surface of the water as you asserted repeatedly, and which my footage demonstrates. The refraction calculator I used is the correct formula for this scenario, as Snell's Law only applies to light traveling between two different mediums.
Additionally, the claim that high humidity would enhance refraction in this context is misguided. Humid air has a lower refractive index than dry air, meaning that increased humidity would actually diminish the bending of light, thus undermining any attempt to explain this observed phenomena as a mere optical distortion caused by the Gulf's atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, refraction through the air is an upward effect. In order for an observer to see objects which are "behind the curve," you simultaneously have to invoke an upward effect to explain light bending downward over a sphere. That is nonsensical.
Likewise, laser divergence only affects the spread of the light beam, not the direction of its central axis. Even with divergence, the laser beam’s center remains on its straight path. The fact that the center of the beam hit the camera lens dead on is not explained by beam divergence, which is why I didn't calculate for it in the first experiment.
However, using publicly available data for the day in question, detailed calculations reveal that refraction cannot account for the observed laser alignment we documented. On the evening of February 4th, 2024, Tampa Bay had 67% humidity and a temperature of 66° F. Using standard formulas for the refractive index of air:
n = 1 + ((77.6 × P / T) - (5.6 × e / T)) × 10⁻⁶
where:
P = 1013.25 hPa (standard atmospheric pressure),
T = 291.9 K (calculated from 66°F),
e = 14.46 hPa (calculated from the relative humidity),
we find at three feet above the water, the refractive index would be approx. 1.002459. Over the 9.51-mile distance, the maximum expected upward vertical deviation due to refraction is approximately 3 inches. This is in line with my original calculations. Thus, refraction alone is far too small to account for the roughly 36 foot discrepancy observed in our experiment. Even accounting for more extreme temperature and density gradients as you posited, the expected deviation from refraction is at most 6 inches — depending on the specific formulas used.
I appreciate your questions on this matter and I believe they are in good faith, so I did want to address it thoroughly. But if you had done these calculations using open-source data and the figures I provided, you would have found that they don't nearly account for what we observed in Tampa. I realize this is the most common objection to these findings, but refraction through air is a measurable and observable phenomenon that we can solve and account for.
Secondly, your repeated claim in this thread that observing buildings disappearing proves curvature is methodologically flawed on several fronts. The phenomenon of objects disappearing "bottom-up" is not unique to the globe mode, it's due to the angular resolution of an object being lower at the bottom due to distance. Everything disappears from the bottom up: that's a function of optics and perspective, not curvature.
Likewise, both laser beams and light from buildings are subject to the same optical phenomena like angular resolution limits and atmos refraction. With controlled origins and measurable variables, laser tests are far more precise. That is why they are used, not in an attempt to somehow skew the experiment's results in our favor (I'm not sure how that would even work to be honest given the math already discussed). Why is the light reflected from a building over water preferable to the light from a laser in your eyes? Hand waving away laser tests while favoring observations of distant objects is textbook special pleading.
Now if this was only my observation I would readily understand your credulity, but you seem to be familiar with these tests, so you know my observation is not isolated. And it's not just lasers tests. Florida and the Bahamas are within a distance range that, in the mainstream scientific model, should obscure one from the other. Yet, clear days have allowed us to view islands and features in the Bahamas that should be hidden by some 1,500 feet of curvature. (https://traveltweaks.com/how-far-is-florida-from-the-bahamas-a-quick-distance-guide-45525/) You can see similar results in England with the Isle of Man. It lies some 30 miles off the coast of England at its nearest point, which means its coastline should be some 500 feet below the supposed curve, yet its coast is easily observable with the naked eye on a clear day. Mountains have been observed over land at distances of almost 250 miles (https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/the-longest-pictures-ever-taken). We can see too far, regardless of whether a laser is used or not.
Ultimately, the math, the methodology, and the replication of similar findings by others demonstrate that refraction or "extreme" atmos conditions simply cannot account for the experimental results and observations presented here. I'd recommend you read through FECore's results that I have linked at the end of the original BC essay on this subject, their budget was much more robust than ours and went way more in depth than we did with their calculations.
I plan on covering this next year, but let me address your claim that New Ager's are the one's behind the FE movement very briefly. The Hebrews, the Judeans, and the early Church unanimously viewed Genesis as literal history, including enclosed cosmology, the firmament, and the waters above. Even Philo, who was notorious for his allegorization of Scripture, taught that the waters above were literal and contained the stars. John Chrysostom is one of the most prolific, respected, and well known expositors in Church history, and he too held to the belief that the earth was enclosed by waters above as the Bible describes. He is not alone in this regard, and this interpretation only fell out of favor in the wake of Augustine's popularization of the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtR_osxSilc))(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5kNZnHejMA).
What we can hopefully both agree on is that this shouldn't divide brethren and that Satan doesn't care what you think about the shape of the Earth, so long as you deny Christ. Your critique of the some of the mainstream proponents of this system (such as FE Dave) are ones I share. The FE movement is far too rife with pagans and heretical doctrines such as Hebrew Roots & Unitarianism. That is why I rarely discuss cosmology when discussing Biblical topics and instead focus on Christology, Kingdom theology, and hermeneutics. Cosmology is just one aspect of our theology, and while impactful, it is ultimately derivative of and subservient to a proper understanding of Jesus Christ. God bless.
Humidity and density and temperature are interlinked. In general the air immediately above the surface of water can bend light in either direction - and the only way to know what is going on is to measure all its attributes accurately at the time. You have to measure not just the temperature and humidity - but the gradient of each in the first inch or two above the surface of the water.
The spread of the light beam is hugely important as, no matter where the center of the axis is:
(a) you can see the beam from anywhere it diverged to - not just on its central axis. So when you see the beam at the other end of your experiment the divergence matters - because your test (observation) is sensitive to the entire diverged beam, not just the central axis.
(b) as the beam diverges - sure the center of the axis of the beam remains 1 meter above the surface of the water (or would if the water were flat), but the lower edge of the diverging cone rapidly approaches the surface of the water. The lowest portion of the diverging cone will actually enter the water and you will not observe it. The center of the axis will continue upwards and not be visible from your observation point because of the curvature of the earth. However some portion of the diverging cone will be diverging at just the right angle to just graze the surface of the water, pass through the very narrow layer of air immediately above the surface of the water which has a very high temperature gradient and consequently refracts the light much more strongly. It is this, and only this portion of the cone (note that the observer has no way of knowing which portion of the cone he is seeing without moving himself up and down to explore its limits - he just sees light) which you see from the observation point on the other side of the lake. This effect is more than adequate to explain how you were able to see the laser despite the curvature.
I disagree that things disappearing bottom up is due solely to angular resolution. Yes angular resolution matters, but so does curvature. In fact it is possible to calculate the curvature of the earth by watching a human walking down a level road and get swallowed up by the horizon. The calculation takes account of both angular resolution and curvature, and yields accurate estimates of the earth's radius.
I googled the Bahamas view you claimed and - at least according to tourist information the Bahamas are visible only from the top of Panorama tower - a very tall skyscraper.
I used to live in England not too far from the Isle of Man - and yes you can see it occasionally from the English coast, although you need to be on the clifftop - you can't see it from the beach. However
(a) note that this view too is over a body of water and subject to the same refraction issue
(b) The Isle of Man is not a coral atoll. Its highest point is ~2000' which is a pretty signficiant height.
Most photos purporting to show impossible views turn out to be fakes - I have debunked a few myself. With an accurate topographical map it is usually possible to prove from relative heights and angles of features at different distances that the view point is not what is claimed.
And it's not that lasers, per se, are bad - it's conducting experiments right over the surface of bodies of water and making the assumption that the laser does not diverge, or that this divergence doesn't matter. This is because the temperature gradient over such a body is significant immediately adjacent to the water. It is true that this problem exists with all such measurements but the problem is typically exacerbated by water.
Re New Agers - I am simply referring to the fact that the "flat earth conspiracy" this time around - when it first got started a few years ago - seemed to be heavily promoted by New Agers. When people first started pushing these laser tests - usually in the form of a video of "scientists" carefully conducting experiments and pretending to be amazed by what they found, one could trace the groups and organizations mentioned in the videos - and one could always (at least every time I tried - admittedly I only did this a handful of times before drawing my conclusion) trace them back to a New Age group.
Finally - you claim that you link to the correct calculator - but that calculator just provides you with a refractive index. This is not useful by itself. You need to understand not just the temperature and humidity at the level of the center axis of your laser, but the gradient of these quantities at different heights as you approcah the surface of the water. It is the gradient which causes the light to continually bend - and you have neither measured this gradient, not performed any calculation to estimate the effect of the gradient.
I am referring to my Tampa experiment alone in my first reply as its results are more definitive, not the Lake Okeechobee experiment. It appears that you are conflating the two in some places here.
Regardless, I didn't do either observation near the water surface — it was 3 feet above it specifically to avoid the intense gradient you mention (as I am familiar with the critiques often leveled at these experiments). The conditions you point out don’t apply to my setup. The calculator I used, while basic, is the correct formula for this situation, even if it doesn’t cover every variable you’re mentioning. That is my main point.
And you’re still overlooking the fact that the additional calculation I did shows that even factoring in weather conditions, refraction can’t account for the massive discrepancy we observed. A gradient is just a shift in values: temperature and humidity may vary as one rises above water level, but they simply don’t account for our observations.
Second, you keep asserting that refraction can explain the results, but I've already shown the math — refraction only accounts for 3-6 inches of deviation, not the 36 feet we would need to observe if the mainstream model were correct. If you're going to claim otherwise, show me the numbers please. While the refraction and gradient factors you mention are indeed relevant in certain contexts, continually emphasizing them as the primary explanation seems to overlook the more pressing issue: though these variables may affect the outcome in small ways, they fall far short of accounting for the discrepancy we observed. Just saying "it could" without quantifying it is not an argument, it's hand-waving.
Thirdly, I didn't assume the beam wouldn't diverge; I've explained several times now why it doesn't explain our findings. Divergence only affects the spread of the beam, not the direction of the central axis. (https://www.gentec-eo.com/blog/laser-beam-divergence-measurement) As you correctly note, were the Earth a sphere, the center of the beam would be over head our position across the bay. But it wasn't a part of the cone we observed over Tampa Bay: the center of the beam hit the camera lens dead on over 9 miles away.
Finally, your explanation of "things disappear bottom-up because of curvature" is guilty of both begging the question and affirming the consequent. Light attenuation, perspective, and angular resolution alone explain this phenomenon, and this can be demonstrated mathematically, as well as practically on smaller scales.
You can't avoid the path of the light traversing the layer very close to the surface. The laser diverges and some of the cone of light travels very close to the water. There is nothing you can do about that - that's where the light goes.
And that's the light you see at the other end. Again you can't choose not to see the light. If you are in the cone, you see it. It doesn't matter whether you are in the middle of the cone, or at the edge, or somewhere in between - you will see light.
And when you see that light you can't say I saw the middle of the cone - you simply do not know wherabouts in the cone you are. You just know that the light is visible and therefore you are somewhere in the cone.
Respectfully, when you reference the observation at Tampa Bay as occurring on the “other side of the lake” (as you did in your second comment), you are conflating the two.
Just to reiterate your argument here then: you're suggesting, sans any mathematical justification or proof, that an almost perfectly circular beam hitting the camera so precisely that the laser diode pattern is visible is merely some outer part of the cone that has diverged and bent downward over the alleged curve — despite light refraction through air being an upward effect. I hope you’ll understand why I remain as unconvinced as you are sir.
1. Apologies for saying lake - water will do. The point is that your experiment was over water which is the surface which typically maximizes refraction.
2. Light refraction through air is not an upward effect. It is a variable effect which depends on various factors you didn't measure. Temperature gradient is the most important (and is downward and also strongly affected by humidity which is why humidity is important), but for an accurate calculation one must measure humidity and pressure gradients as well.
3. You cannot know which portion of the beam you observed. The camera will observe the light wherever it is in the beam. You are saying something equivalent to "I looked up in the sky and saw the middle of the sun, therefore I must be on the equator."
4. I have provided no working because
(a) nor did you. You linked to a calulator which merely provides a refractive index (not at all sufficient for your calculation) and then announced without working that this implied some maximum amount of refraction.
(b) The necessary calculations for you to show your point are quite complicated
(c) I do not need to provide working because I am not making a specific claim regarding the curvature of the earth's surface - I am simply pointing out that your methodology depended upon assumptions which you did not prove and is therefore flawed and that your experiment therefore does not prove what you said it does.
4. If you want to prove something - go back and do your experiment again and find a way to place your camera at a variable height. Determine the greatest height at which the laser is visible. I'm pretty sure that you will discover that it is much higher than would be the case if the earth were flat. Surely you would agree that this is a simple way to guard against the type of error I am suggesting occurred here, and would make your experiment much more convincing? If you are really interested in the truth, then I think you would do this.
5. I am not claiming that your experiment proves curvature of the earth - I am merely saying
(a) it does not prove the opposite.
(b) you need to improve the experiment to eliminate potential large sources of error.
FWIW - and I realize that argumentam ad auctoritatem is a fallacy - but nevertheless I spent a semester studying optics as part of my degree. I do know what I am talking about here.
There are SO many different methods with which one could give more proof for the 'covidian minds' of the infinite curvature (i.e. flat) of the earth, that it is literally mindblowing why the 'modern physics' never ask the 'globe yeas or no' question, at least with higher precision....?? Yes, it would confirm that the Bible is right. And not for nothing Einstein showed up with his Relativity right after Michelson–Morley experiment showed no 'eather' and no differences in motion, no matter which direction.. Suddenly not only the space is curved, but time too, or is it??
On the other note, the PILOTS in the flying airplanes are the no 1 witness of the real curvature, and yet, they also never ask, or see, or whatever is wrong with their minds, replaced by the militaries GPS systems...
There is also the question, how the Newtons gravity force completely erases the feeling of the centrifugal force on the human body/brain during such an incredible rotational speed of the earth.... ? Or the fact that the earth magnetic field is varying in direction/magnitude in every spot, yet the growth of all undisturbed plants is always up ? Anyway, too late for me to start walking with gyroscope, compas and the ruler to see the truth with own eyes.. The funniest thing was for me to discuss with an well known physicist the scenario in which a digger starts with such a deep hole in one spot on the planet, that he comes out on the other side of the earth surface, upside down... No, no the digger changes its position in the middle of the earth, zero gravity, not knowing about it and stands normally in the other direction after crossing the entire diameter of the earth....
This is a bad experiment designed to produce the result Scipio discovered for reasons Scipio's calculations do not account for. There is a reason all these so-called experiments are performed immediately above the surface of a body of water - and the reason is that this is where refraction is greatest. In any other circumstance - e.g. over a desert, or a flat plain, or even over water at a greater height provided that the laser's divergence does not take it down to the surface, you do not get this effect and the curvature is readily apparent.
You can also easily see the earth's curvature by measuring the height of a mountain or a skyscraper from a distance. Or just sail away from a cliff in a boat. Anyone can do this, and these are incredibly simple experiements. Why don't flat-earthers do these experiments (or rather sometimes they do but they have to fake/cheat the results)? Because they clearly show curvature - that's why.
And FWIW - most of the people involved with flat earth, and the people who first performed these laser experiments were not Christians at all - they were/are New Agers, which should tell you something in and of itself.
Where’s the adjustments for air density, temperature and humidity which are highly variable over large bodies of water? Dry air is a different media than humid air. Remember, water in the air makes it lighter. Humid air is lighter than dry air. But wait! What about fog?!
Counter-intuitive just like air pressure increasing as speed exceeds Mach 1 rather than continuing to decrease as speed increases. Sound and pressure impact each other’s behavior? Who’d have thunk?
Nope, lack of science education or the absence of information doesn’t prove theories. How do you explain the curved shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Is the sun under the round, flat earth? Hmmm 🤔
While I certainly would not and did not state that I "proved" my theory through a mere 4 data points, my dataset already falsifies the commonly accepted curvature formula. I don't have to prove my theory in its totality in order to disprove a specific claim of the current globe model. To be intellectually honest, I'm still open to Earth being a significantly larger sphere than we've been told; Newton's theory of gravity & NASA on the other hand are less so. Can you also define "highly variable" please, because by my calculations and knowledge of atmos dynamics, such effects would have been negligible and certainly could not account for dozens, let alone hundreds of feet of unseen curvature.
Regardless, refraction through the air is an upward effect. In order for an observer to see objects which are behind the "curve" by hundreds of feet, such as what we observed, you simultaneously have to invoke an upward effect to explain light bending downward over a sphere. The curve can't ever be measured or visually defined from the surface of the Earth according to the globe model, we just have to trust that it's there. Every time we see too far, well that's just an illusion we're told. Yes we're spinning, wobbling, whirling, and twirling at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, you just can't feel it.
I find those explanations extremely untenable to bordering on the absurd, in addition to being unscientific due to their unfalsifiable nature.
"How do you explain the curved shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Is the sun under the round, flat earth?"
That's a great question. Firstly, no one I've ever interacted with who believes that the Earth is a stationary, topographical plane believes that we are a pizza pie flying through "space", and neither do I. Now I would ask you, if a lunar eclipse is supposedly caused by the Earth intersecting the path of the Sun in order to cast a shadow, how is it possible that we have documented lunar eclipses in which the Sun and the Moon are in the sky at the same time?
(Spoiler: we are told that's just an illusion due to refraction, naturally.)
"I’ve looked in depth at FE and it doesn’t hold water and, unlike some claim, is not scriptural. The FE believers often impact the truth of the Bible and twist the Word to fit their meanings."
The late Dr. Michael Heiser did an exceptional lecture on the topic of Old Testament cosmology for those unfamiliar with this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbPtym0NboU. Any serious Hebrew scholar or historian will affirm this, it's really not seriously debatable that the OT exclusively describes Earth as an enclosed, stationary, and geocentric plane: Josephus even writes about the Hebrew conception of the crystalline firmament in the Antiquities of the Jews. Whether that matches reality or not is obviously what is up for debate, but the idea is indeed found in Scripture.
I hope you'll understand why I'm skeptical of the claim you've looked at this "in depth" when you are throwing out the flying pizza pie model as an honest representation of Biblical cosmology. If you genuinely believe I've twisted the words of Scripture to fit my preconceived ideas in this or any other essay I've written on this topic, I would encourage and appreciate that you cite specific examples so we can address them; otherwise, its effectively a form of poisoning the well. Thanks and God bless.
Sorry for my demeanor. I've got a lot going on and my energy level is less than needed to be congenial. In depth is subjective and I don't get a thrill out of the math. I imagine I could look up humidities, currents, temperatures, etc., but it's foolish to spend time on things that can be disproven through other scientific methods. Using light can be argued to be a poor way to experiment if the earth is flat or nearly flat, similar to useing a bubble level on an airplane and claim it stayed 'flat' during flight.
The variability I alluded to were with respect to temperature and humidity above the surface of a body of water which has variable currents and temperatures, creating a highly variable air environment above it. Density, correlated to temperature and humidity, affect refraction. Diffraction is also an issue. It's obvious that the laser diffracted across the distance you showed; it wasn't a pin point across the body of water. I also recently saw the "Answers in Genesis" FE article on YouTube a few days before your post: https://youtu.be/bu9S2r_TVwI?si=76clSxo8jUjsb4s1 which strengthened my, let's call it, belief. Also, the Foucault Pendulum experiment can easily show opposing rotation of the earth on the north/south poles and north and south of the equator (although, granted, I don't believe they took one to each of the poles to prove it). It's also possible to figure out the circumference of the earth using Eratosthenes method, which, in my mind, would only work on a sphere. While studying this further today, I ran across an article written by a 'scientist' that visited a Flat Earth conference and he brought up a good point about NOT trash talking flat earthers, but rather, to investigate the sociological aspects of the distrust and the fact that having information available for all hasn't led to a peaceful life existence but rather the converse. Isn't there a saying about how a little information plus a lot of motivation can lead to innovation or disaster? Is free energy really free, or will it come from elsewhere and unwittingly cause the destruction of other planets? Is the extraction of power from the wind a good thing or will there be other unintended consequences from removing energy from the atmosphere (wind)? Is non-ionizing radiation REALLY inert or are we destroying our existence one information carrying photon at a time?
I truly think/believe, based on my limited IQ and simple critical thinking capability plus the multitude of experiments and equations available on the internet, that an FE or a larger earth is improbable. However, (there's always a but), with the knowledge of scalar waves and the potential for splitting reality to travel unseen through gravity/time, or however it's done, I also know that I don't know much. I mean, angels and demons can exist in the room with me and I can't see them. I know nothing.
Were some of the moon landings faked? Likely, but unprovable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Were all the landings faked. Maybe. Will I know while inhabiting this human body? Doubtful. Does it help my salvation by pondering these things? Absolutely not! I should be spending my energy doing my job for the glory of God and loving God and my neighbor, but my curiosity gets in the way. Thank you for the blessing and may you and your's also be greatly blessed by God and may your cup overfloweth. Gotta run and do some work!
I think to address the question of air density above a body of water you will have to repeat the experiment at a different time of year when the air is either hotter or colder above the lake. Even repeating the experiment during the day would help add value.
Did you guys take note of the tempretures when you did your experiments?
If you get the exact same results at a different time of year (at different tempretures) then you can argue that air density is not making and impact. But it's hard because you need to know the exact tempretures across the entire distance the laser travels over the lake or prove it remains constant.
Another thing to consider when using lasers is beam diffusion. The laser beam slowly gets wider the further away you are from it, creating a larger visible area.
The biggest and most important difference between what the ancients said and what was written is, their alleged words are copies of copies; none of their original works and speeches have ever been discovered. Most of these copies were done centuries later, and still others are outright forgeries. Thus, you cannot unequivocally prove that anything which has been attributed to them they actually said.
Another issue is, there are no records of these people -- Aristotle, Plato, Eurypides, none of them -- ever having truly existed. Like William Shakespeare. They just appear out of nowhere and write a great many things, which are widely disseminated and later canonized; and you must ask the question why: why are these people specifically chosen to venerate? Who decides that among scores of others throughout history these are the best of the best?
Cui bono?
The Science has recently outed itself, though it was hidden in plain sight (think: caduceus), as an enemy of God and man. Science attempts to explain what God is, define parameters to Him, but He is infinite. Everything Science tries to do is prove that men are smart enough to understand Him and His ways, and by further doing outsmart our Creator. Transgenderism, vaccinations, implants, astronomy -- all these are venues by which Science believes it can improve on God's creation, to transcend Him.
How do you explain the curved shadow partial moon when it and the sun are both in the early afternoon sky at the same time? There’s no reason for any obstruction yet you can see it with your own eyes 👀. As a professional engineer I have to surmise that Scipio is closer to the truth than your dismissive comment. Enjoy the NASA magic shows. They’re so much fun for those willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and questioning attitudes.
The sun illuminates the side of the moon facing the sun, and then darkness on the side facing away. The curve is due to the surface curve of the moon and not the shadow of the earth. I guess we’re both dismissive in our own ways. I’ve looked in depth at FE and it doesn’t hold water and, unlike some claim, is not scriptural. The FE believers often impact the truth of the Bible and twist the Word to fit their meanings. Like science, there is truth that is twisted. I hate people deceiving others for humor and that’s what I believe is happening with FE fairy tales. And bringing NASA into the conversation is disingenuous, like using Bill to give Hillary credibility. What state are you registered in? Have you stamped anything? What school of critical thinking did you attend?
Michigan State , Illinois, Michigan Indiana etc. . 1981 and the Bible is not sound source material since the old testament was incongruously slapped on the front of the new. There is recurrent wisdom in emulating the life of Jesus, the old book is just propaganda for the people who wear tiny little hats.
This has to be the mother of all psyops.
People are so wedded to the globe model, it’s almost as sacred to them as Satan Claus. If you dare to prick the bubble you get pounded because you are destroying a deep seated psychological fantasy, extinguishing the spark of magic so they rebel.
I am sorry that my parents are no longer here, I am sure that the evidence would’ve convinced them… with a little kitten nudging.
I must admit, I have found the visceral reaction by some upon the broaching of this topic quite curious. Particularly amongst the truther community, if we were(are) stuck inside a real life Hunger Games against our will, you'd think they would be the first that would want to know.
it’s probably some sort of anchoring effect, like a three leg stool supporting a worldview… dare to kick out one leg and everything collapses… so it’s a primal defense mechanism to protect it (worldview/universe) at any/all costs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
they’re deeply invested in the illusion, some more than others.
I'll keep an open mind, kitten, but I'm not quite ready for FE yet :). I have to say one thing that irritates me a little is calling it FE. Flat is a planar attribute, why doesn't the theory refer to its three-dimensional shape?
I agree with you Petra, the term FE is inarticulate and can often hinder serious intellectual discussion about the nature of creation. And thanks to that blatant controlled op outfit, the Flat Earth Society, so many people have the absurd conception of the Flat Earth as a pizza pie flying through space.
OK, so what shape is it, Scipio, assuming there is a defined shape?
My belief is that the Earth is a topographical, enclosed, circular plane as described by Scripture.
OK, I'm not quite sure what that describes but I'm going to leave it there for the moment.
BTW, Scipio, did you read my post, Blood and bandages: are they real?, because it refers to Gaza? Actually, taking a quick look back at your article I see I should link to it and I think one of your images would be very useful. Going to bed now. Good night.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/blood-and-bandages-are-they-real
agree, topographical rimmed earth might be more descriptive 😻
Okaaay but what shape is that?
maybe if the world governments military presence in Antarctica didn’t prevent independent research we could precisely map the true shape in detail. alas, no such luck … you have to question why the security is so tight there, what are they colluding to protect at all costs?
On that subject I have no clue but I'd imagine that even without Antarctica whatever shape the earth is should be able to be worked out assuming it's not a sphere as generally believed. According to ChatGPT it only occupies 2.7% of the earth's surface. Of course, if the earth isn't at all what we believe it to be then this figure doesn't necessarily mean much.
Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent on Earth, covering an area of approximately 14 million square kilometers (about 5.4 million square miles). With the total surface area of Earth being around 510 million square kilometers (about 196.9 million square miles), Antarctica occupies roughly 2.7% of the Earth's surface.
this is not an endorsement of the author or the magazine but maybe it comes close …
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-accurate-flat-map-of-earth-yet/
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gleason%27s_new_standard_map_of_the_world_-_on_the_projection_of_J._S._Christopher,_Modern_College,_Blackheath,_England;_scientifically_and_practically_correct;_as_%22it_is.%22_(10143175716).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
I appreciate my brother for all the hard work and effort and putting boots on the ground actually getting out there and putting his money where his mouth is. we should all be so passionate for the truth and pursue it vigorously. 👊💥💯
Not everyone will agree with Scipio on all points but we should be impressed with his efforts and I applaud him as a writer and thinker. Always leave your mind open!👏
Thanks PM!
We were conditioned to lean on the man-worshipping wisdom and pride of the world's scientistic religion (babylon). The path to life is to become "fools" in the eyes of the pagans and find freedom.
Thank you! Totally irrefutable!
The truth’s straight as an arrow.
If the earth is a flat plane not a spinning spheroid in the infinite vacuum of the universe orbiting a star named Solaris, then "space" itself is most probably a psyop. So all those science fiction writers who I grew up reading - Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke - were full of it. Have Spacesuit Will Travel. The Rings of Saturn. A Fall of Moondust. Fantasies. Guys, how could you do this to a teenage brain full of wonder? 😄
So, the fact that I can see Melbourne city buildings across Port Phillip Bay from a distance of at least 40km is not enough proof? I’m revisiting your work as I just got my hands on a Nikon p1000 and want to get all of my facts straight before I start sharing my footage.
This is exciting work!
I avidly gobble up all your work. However I do not find this piece convincing.
1. Your refraction calculations are dubious. In particular:
(a) the calulator you have linked to does not perform any calculation giving the result you imply it generated. This calculator is at least performing the type of calculation you need to perform: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/snells-law, however even this will not perform the exact calculation you need which is actually quite complicated because the refraction is occurring continually over the entire distance and thus you cannot simply calculate a single change in direction at an interface.
(b) you mention only the relative speed of light in air and vacuum as inputs to your calculation, but it appears you have entirely ignored (actually it's hard to know what you have ignored since you provide no working for your claimed refraction calculation).
- the angle of graze (refraction is greater at very shallow angles), at least the calculator you link to does not account for this
- the temperature gradient
- the density/humidity gradient
- beam divergence (lasers diverge by ~1m per km) which ensures that the beam traverses the air immediately adjacent to the surface of the water (rather than a meter or so higher) where there is a very tiny layer with a much higher density gradient than even a foot or two higher.
The temperature and density gradients are typically fairly low, except immediately above large bodies of warm water when they can be very significant. You have performed this experiment very close to the surface of a large body of water in what might be the most humid part of the USA - Florida's gulf coast.
2. There are many other pieces of evidence for a spherical earth. One of the strongest is navigation. If the earth is not a sphere all the distances between points in the Southern hemisphere would be incorrect. This is the type of information that really would require a huge number of people to be "in on it" - every airline pilot and ship's captain who ever navigates in the southern hemisphere in fact - the sort of conspiracy which would be impossible to pull off. Another piece of evidence is the apparent height of distant objects such as tall buildings, cliffs, mountains or even trees (this is a much better, and simpler, test than the laser tests you describe - the problem for flat earthers is that these tests are simple for anyone to check and the results clearly show curvature).
Thank you for your continued engagement with my work Horace, even when we don't see eye to eye. I appreciate your critique, as it allows for a deeper exploration of the methodology and conditions involved. Let me address the key points you’ve raised in your several comments on this post.
Firstly, let me clarify that the calculations provided in the original BC article were indeed rough estimates based on open source data, but even more precise calculations do not explain our findings, as I will discuss shortly. We had the camera and laser positioned several feet above the water precisely to avoid the temperature gradient you speak of, as I annotated in my calculations. This was not done hovering over the surface of the water as you asserted repeatedly, and which my footage demonstrates. The refraction calculator I used is the correct formula for this scenario, as Snell's Law only applies to light traveling between two different mediums.
Additionally, the claim that high humidity would enhance refraction in this context is misguided. Humid air has a lower refractive index than dry air, meaning that increased humidity would actually diminish the bending of light, thus undermining any attempt to explain this observed phenomena as a mere optical distortion caused by the Gulf's atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, refraction through the air is an upward effect. In order for an observer to see objects which are "behind the curve," you simultaneously have to invoke an upward effect to explain light bending downward over a sphere. That is nonsensical.
Likewise, laser divergence only affects the spread of the light beam, not the direction of its central axis. Even with divergence, the laser beam’s center remains on its straight path. The fact that the center of the beam hit the camera lens dead on is not explained by beam divergence, which is why I didn't calculate for it in the first experiment.
However, using publicly available data for the day in question, detailed calculations reveal that refraction cannot account for the observed laser alignment we documented. On the evening of February 4th, 2024, Tampa Bay had 67% humidity and a temperature of 66° F. Using standard formulas for the refractive index of air:
n = 1 + ((77.6 × P / T) - (5.6 × e / T)) × 10⁻⁶
where:
P = 1013.25 hPa (standard atmospheric pressure),
T = 291.9 K (calculated from 66°F),
e = 14.46 hPa (calculated from the relative humidity),
we find at three feet above the water, the refractive index would be approx. 1.002459. Over the 9.51-mile distance, the maximum expected upward vertical deviation due to refraction is approximately 3 inches. This is in line with my original calculations. Thus, refraction alone is far too small to account for the roughly 36 foot discrepancy observed in our experiment. Even accounting for more extreme temperature and density gradients as you posited, the expected deviation from refraction is at most 6 inches — depending on the specific formulas used.
I appreciate your questions on this matter and I believe they are in good faith, so I did want to address it thoroughly. But if you had done these calculations using open-source data and the figures I provided, you would have found that they don't nearly account for what we observed in Tampa. I realize this is the most common objection to these findings, but refraction through air is a measurable and observable phenomenon that we can solve and account for.
Secondly, your repeated claim in this thread that observing buildings disappearing proves curvature is methodologically flawed on several fronts. The phenomenon of objects disappearing "bottom-up" is not unique to the globe mode, it's due to the angular resolution of an object being lower at the bottom due to distance. Everything disappears from the bottom up: that's a function of optics and perspective, not curvature.
Likewise, both laser beams and light from buildings are subject to the same optical phenomena like angular resolution limits and atmos refraction. With controlled origins and measurable variables, laser tests are far more precise. That is why they are used, not in an attempt to somehow skew the experiment's results in our favor (I'm not sure how that would even work to be honest given the math already discussed). Why is the light reflected from a building over water preferable to the light from a laser in your eyes? Hand waving away laser tests while favoring observations of distant objects is textbook special pleading.
Now if this was only my observation I would readily understand your credulity, but you seem to be familiar with these tests, so you know my observation is not isolated. And it's not just lasers tests. Florida and the Bahamas are within a distance range that, in the mainstream scientific model, should obscure one from the other. Yet, clear days have allowed us to view islands and features in the Bahamas that should be hidden by some 1,500 feet of curvature. (https://traveltweaks.com/how-far-is-florida-from-the-bahamas-a-quick-distance-guide-45525/) You can see similar results in England with the Isle of Man. It lies some 30 miles off the coast of England at its nearest point, which means its coastline should be some 500 feet below the supposed curve, yet its coast is easily observable with the naked eye on a clear day. Mountains have been observed over land at distances of almost 250 miles (https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/the-longest-pictures-ever-taken). We can see too far, regardless of whether a laser is used or not.
Ultimately, the math, the methodology, and the replication of similar findings by others demonstrate that refraction or "extreme" atmos conditions simply cannot account for the experimental results and observations presented here. I'd recommend you read through FECore's results that I have linked at the end of the original BC essay on this subject, their budget was much more robust than ours and went way more in depth than we did with their calculations.
I plan on covering this next year, but let me address your claim that New Ager's are the one's behind the FE movement very briefly. The Hebrews, the Judeans, and the early Church unanimously viewed Genesis as literal history, including enclosed cosmology, the firmament, and the waters above. Even Philo, who was notorious for his allegorization of Scripture, taught that the waters above were literal and contained the stars. John Chrysostom is one of the most prolific, respected, and well known expositors in Church history, and he too held to the belief that the earth was enclosed by waters above as the Bible describes. He is not alone in this regard, and this interpretation only fell out of favor in the wake of Augustine's popularization of the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtR_osxSilc))(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5kNZnHejMA).
What we can hopefully both agree on is that this shouldn't divide brethren and that Satan doesn't care what you think about the shape of the Earth, so long as you deny Christ. Your critique of the some of the mainstream proponents of this system (such as FE Dave) are ones I share. The FE movement is far too rife with pagans and heretical doctrines such as Hebrew Roots & Unitarianism. That is why I rarely discuss cosmology when discussing Biblical topics and instead focus on Christology, Kingdom theology, and hermeneutics. Cosmology is just one aspect of our theology, and while impactful, it is ultimately derivative of and subservient to a proper understanding of Jesus Christ. God bless.
Humidity and density and temperature are interlinked. In general the air immediately above the surface of water can bend light in either direction - and the only way to know what is going on is to measure all its attributes accurately at the time. You have to measure not just the temperature and humidity - but the gradient of each in the first inch or two above the surface of the water.
The spread of the light beam is hugely important as, no matter where the center of the axis is:
(a) you can see the beam from anywhere it diverged to - not just on its central axis. So when you see the beam at the other end of your experiment the divergence matters - because your test (observation) is sensitive to the entire diverged beam, not just the central axis.
(b) as the beam diverges - sure the center of the axis of the beam remains 1 meter above the surface of the water (or would if the water were flat), but the lower edge of the diverging cone rapidly approaches the surface of the water. The lowest portion of the diverging cone will actually enter the water and you will not observe it. The center of the axis will continue upwards and not be visible from your observation point because of the curvature of the earth. However some portion of the diverging cone will be diverging at just the right angle to just graze the surface of the water, pass through the very narrow layer of air immediately above the surface of the water which has a very high temperature gradient and consequently refracts the light much more strongly. It is this, and only this portion of the cone (note that the observer has no way of knowing which portion of the cone he is seeing without moving himself up and down to explore its limits - he just sees light) which you see from the observation point on the other side of the lake. This effect is more than adequate to explain how you were able to see the laser despite the curvature.
I disagree that things disappearing bottom up is due solely to angular resolution. Yes angular resolution matters, but so does curvature. In fact it is possible to calculate the curvature of the earth by watching a human walking down a level road and get swallowed up by the horizon. The calculation takes account of both angular resolution and curvature, and yields accurate estimates of the earth's radius.
I googled the Bahamas view you claimed and - at least according to tourist information the Bahamas are visible only from the top of Panorama tower - a very tall skyscraper.
I used to live in England not too far from the Isle of Man - and yes you can see it occasionally from the English coast, although you need to be on the clifftop - you can't see it from the beach. However
(a) note that this view too is over a body of water and subject to the same refraction issue
(b) The Isle of Man is not a coral atoll. Its highest point is ~2000' which is a pretty signficiant height.
Most photos purporting to show impossible views turn out to be fakes - I have debunked a few myself. With an accurate topographical map it is usually possible to prove from relative heights and angles of features at different distances that the view point is not what is claimed.
And it's not that lasers, per se, are bad - it's conducting experiments right over the surface of bodies of water and making the assumption that the laser does not diverge, or that this divergence doesn't matter. This is because the temperature gradient over such a body is significant immediately adjacent to the water. It is true that this problem exists with all such measurements but the problem is typically exacerbated by water.
Re New Agers - I am simply referring to the fact that the "flat earth conspiracy" this time around - when it first got started a few years ago - seemed to be heavily promoted by New Agers. When people first started pushing these laser tests - usually in the form of a video of "scientists" carefully conducting experiments and pretending to be amazed by what they found, one could trace the groups and organizations mentioned in the videos - and one could always (at least every time I tried - admittedly I only did this a handful of times before drawing my conclusion) trace them back to a New Age group.
Finally - you claim that you link to the correct calculator - but that calculator just provides you with a refractive index. This is not useful by itself. You need to understand not just the temperature and humidity at the level of the center axis of your laser, but the gradient of these quantities at different heights as you approcah the surface of the water. It is the gradient which causes the light to continually bend - and you have neither measured this gradient, not performed any calculation to estimate the effect of the gradient.
I am referring to my Tampa experiment alone in my first reply as its results are more definitive, not the Lake Okeechobee experiment. It appears that you are conflating the two in some places here.
Regardless, I didn't do either observation near the water surface — it was 3 feet above it specifically to avoid the intense gradient you mention (as I am familiar with the critiques often leveled at these experiments). The conditions you point out don’t apply to my setup. The calculator I used, while basic, is the correct formula for this situation, even if it doesn’t cover every variable you’re mentioning. That is my main point.
And you’re still overlooking the fact that the additional calculation I did shows that even factoring in weather conditions, refraction can’t account for the massive discrepancy we observed. A gradient is just a shift in values: temperature and humidity may vary as one rises above water level, but they simply don’t account for our observations.
Second, you keep asserting that refraction can explain the results, but I've already shown the math — refraction only accounts for 3-6 inches of deviation, not the 36 feet we would need to observe if the mainstream model were correct. If you're going to claim otherwise, show me the numbers please. While the refraction and gradient factors you mention are indeed relevant in certain contexts, continually emphasizing them as the primary explanation seems to overlook the more pressing issue: though these variables may affect the outcome in small ways, they fall far short of accounting for the discrepancy we observed. Just saying "it could" without quantifying it is not an argument, it's hand-waving.
Thirdly, I didn't assume the beam wouldn't diverge; I've explained several times now why it doesn't explain our findings. Divergence only affects the spread of the beam, not the direction of the central axis. (https://www.gentec-eo.com/blog/laser-beam-divergence-measurement) As you correctly note, were the Earth a sphere, the center of the beam would be over head our position across the bay. But it wasn't a part of the cone we observed over Tampa Bay: the center of the beam hit the camera lens dead on over 9 miles away.
Finally, your explanation of "things disappear bottom-up because of curvature" is guilty of both begging the question and affirming the consequent. Light attenuation, perspective, and angular resolution alone explain this phenomenon, and this can be demonstrated mathematically, as well as practically on smaller scales.
No I'm not conflating the two things.
You can't avoid the path of the light traversing the layer very close to the surface. The laser diverges and some of the cone of light travels very close to the water. There is nothing you can do about that - that's where the light goes.
And that's the light you see at the other end. Again you can't choose not to see the light. If you are in the cone, you see it. It doesn't matter whether you are in the middle of the cone, or at the edge, or somewhere in between - you will see light.
And when you see that light you can't say I saw the middle of the cone - you simply do not know wherabouts in the cone you are. You just know that the light is visible and therefore you are somewhere in the cone.
Respectfully, when you reference the observation at Tampa Bay as occurring on the “other side of the lake” (as you did in your second comment), you are conflating the two.
Just to reiterate your argument here then: you're suggesting, sans any mathematical justification or proof, that an almost perfectly circular beam hitting the camera so precisely that the laser diode pattern is visible is merely some outer part of the cone that has diverged and bent downward over the alleged curve — despite light refraction through air being an upward effect. I hope you’ll understand why I remain as unconvinced as you are sir.
1. Apologies for saying lake - water will do. The point is that your experiment was over water which is the surface which typically maximizes refraction.
2. Light refraction through air is not an upward effect. It is a variable effect which depends on various factors you didn't measure. Temperature gradient is the most important (and is downward and also strongly affected by humidity which is why humidity is important), but for an accurate calculation one must measure humidity and pressure gradients as well.
3. You cannot know which portion of the beam you observed. The camera will observe the light wherever it is in the beam. You are saying something equivalent to "I looked up in the sky and saw the middle of the sun, therefore I must be on the equator."
4. I have provided no working because
(a) nor did you. You linked to a calulator which merely provides a refractive index (not at all sufficient for your calculation) and then announced without working that this implied some maximum amount of refraction.
(b) The necessary calculations for you to show your point are quite complicated
(c) I do not need to provide working because I am not making a specific claim regarding the curvature of the earth's surface - I am simply pointing out that your methodology depended upon assumptions which you did not prove and is therefore flawed and that your experiment therefore does not prove what you said it does.
4. If you want to prove something - go back and do your experiment again and find a way to place your camera at a variable height. Determine the greatest height at which the laser is visible. I'm pretty sure that you will discover that it is much higher than would be the case if the earth were flat. Surely you would agree that this is a simple way to guard against the type of error I am suggesting occurred here, and would make your experiment much more convincing? If you are really interested in the truth, then I think you would do this.
5. I am not claiming that your experiment proves curvature of the earth - I am merely saying
(a) it does not prove the opposite.
(b) you need to improve the experiment to eliminate potential large sources of error.
FWIW - and I realize that argumentam ad auctoritatem is a fallacy - but nevertheless I spent a semester studying optics as part of my degree. I do know what I am talking about here.
That FE topic which surfaced ONLY around 2015 just blew me away, started to read the bible, again, and again....
The fact that one of the FE heros AND biblical studies expert, Rob Skiba, was literally killed end of 2021, with lethal covid hospital protocols (https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/vaxxed-3-authorized-to-kill/vaxxed-3-authorized-to-kill/) only further deepened this entire Mother and Father of all psyops, like Kitten says below.... Here a good start of free Masonry, in which Pitagoras was the figure...
https://sacredgeometryinternational.com/zionist-jewish-freemasonry-unveiled/
There are SO many different methods with which one could give more proof for the 'covidian minds' of the infinite curvature (i.e. flat) of the earth, that it is literally mindblowing why the 'modern physics' never ask the 'globe yeas or no' question, at least with higher precision....?? Yes, it would confirm that the Bible is right. And not for nothing Einstein showed up with his Relativity right after Michelson–Morley experiment showed no 'eather' and no differences in motion, no matter which direction.. Suddenly not only the space is curved, but time too, or is it??
On the other note, the PILOTS in the flying airplanes are the no 1 witness of the real curvature, and yet, they also never ask, or see, or whatever is wrong with their minds, replaced by the militaries GPS systems...
There is also the question, how the Newtons gravity force completely erases the feeling of the centrifugal force on the human body/brain during such an incredible rotational speed of the earth.... ? Or the fact that the earth magnetic field is varying in direction/magnitude in every spot, yet the growth of all undisturbed plants is always up ? Anyway, too late for me to start walking with gyroscope, compas and the ruler to see the truth with own eyes.. The funniest thing was for me to discuss with an well known physicist the scenario in which a digger starts with such a deep hole in one spot on the planet, that he comes out on the other side of the earth surface, upside down... No, no the digger changes its position in the middle of the earth, zero gravity, not knowing about it and stands normally in the other direction after crossing the entire diameter of the earth....
Once again You have not disappointed, with you absolute thoroughness. I admire your work and leaving no room for discrepancy.
Micro or macro I am open minded enough to have a crack at this. Laser, a big lake, tick, we have both here. Thanks.
This is a bad experiment designed to produce the result Scipio discovered for reasons Scipio's calculations do not account for. There is a reason all these so-called experiments are performed immediately above the surface of a body of water - and the reason is that this is where refraction is greatest. In any other circumstance - e.g. over a desert, or a flat plain, or even over water at a greater height provided that the laser's divergence does not take it down to the surface, you do not get this effect and the curvature is readily apparent.
You can also easily see the earth's curvature by measuring the height of a mountain or a skyscraper from a distance. Or just sail away from a cliff in a boat. Anyone can do this, and these are incredibly simple experiements. Why don't flat-earthers do these experiments (or rather sometimes they do but they have to fake/cheat the results)? Because they clearly show curvature - that's why.
And FWIW - most of the people involved with flat earth, and the people who first performed these laser experiments were not Christians at all - they were/are New Agers, which should tell you something in and of itself.
correct, I have gone over the horizon many times in a boat.
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon https://youtube.com/watch?v=W9ksbh88OJs
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 2 - The Stars https://youtube.com/watch?v=NGZEXkSX9wI
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 3 - The Moon https://youtube.com/watch?v=FTBaOmJEQg0
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 4 - Easy Experiments https://youtube.com/watch?v=VFU1A88N_6I
Flat Earth Falsities - "Flat Earth in 5 Minutes" Debunked https://youtube.com/watch?v=VbVmM9ymjxA
Where’s the adjustments for air density, temperature and humidity which are highly variable over large bodies of water? Dry air is a different media than humid air. Remember, water in the air makes it lighter. Humid air is lighter than dry air. But wait! What about fog?!
Counter-intuitive just like air pressure increasing as speed exceeds Mach 1 rather than continuing to decrease as speed increases. Sound and pressure impact each other’s behavior? Who’d have thunk?
Nope, lack of science education or the absence of information doesn’t prove theories. How do you explain the curved shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Is the sun under the round, flat earth? Hmmm 🤔
While I certainly would not and did not state that I "proved" my theory through a mere 4 data points, my dataset already falsifies the commonly accepted curvature formula. I don't have to prove my theory in its totality in order to disprove a specific claim of the current globe model. To be intellectually honest, I'm still open to Earth being a significantly larger sphere than we've been told; Newton's theory of gravity & NASA on the other hand are less so. Can you also define "highly variable" please, because by my calculations and knowledge of atmos dynamics, such effects would have been negligible and certainly could not account for dozens, let alone hundreds of feet of unseen curvature.
Regardless, refraction through the air is an upward effect. In order for an observer to see objects which are behind the "curve" by hundreds of feet, such as what we observed, you simultaneously have to invoke an upward effect to explain light bending downward over a sphere. The curve can't ever be measured or visually defined from the surface of the Earth according to the globe model, we just have to trust that it's there. Every time we see too far, well that's just an illusion we're told. Yes we're spinning, wobbling, whirling, and twirling at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, you just can't feel it.
I find those explanations extremely untenable to bordering on the absurd, in addition to being unscientific due to their unfalsifiable nature.
"How do you explain the curved shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Is the sun under the round, flat earth?"
That's a great question. Firstly, no one I've ever interacted with who believes that the Earth is a stationary, topographical plane believes that we are a pizza pie flying through "space", and neither do I. Now I would ask you, if a lunar eclipse is supposedly caused by the Earth intersecting the path of the Sun in order to cast a shadow, how is it possible that we have documented lunar eclipses in which the Sun and the Moon are in the sky at the same time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MshJTdilGTs
(Spoiler: we are told that's just an illusion due to refraction, naturally.)
"I’ve looked in depth at FE and it doesn’t hold water and, unlike some claim, is not scriptural. The FE believers often impact the truth of the Bible and twist the Word to fit their meanings."
The late Dr. Michael Heiser did an exceptional lecture on the topic of Old Testament cosmology for those unfamiliar with this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbPtym0NboU. Any serious Hebrew scholar or historian will affirm this, it's really not seriously debatable that the OT exclusively describes Earth as an enclosed, stationary, and geocentric plane: Josephus even writes about the Hebrew conception of the crystalline firmament in the Antiquities of the Jews. Whether that matches reality or not is obviously what is up for debate, but the idea is indeed found in Scripture.
I hope you'll understand why I'm skeptical of the claim you've looked at this "in depth" when you are throwing out the flying pizza pie model as an honest representation of Biblical cosmology. If you genuinely believe I've twisted the words of Scripture to fit my preconceived ideas in this or any other essay I've written on this topic, I would encourage and appreciate that you cite specific examples so we can address them; otherwise, its effectively a form of poisoning the well. Thanks and God bless.
Sorry for my demeanor. I've got a lot going on and my energy level is less than needed to be congenial. In depth is subjective and I don't get a thrill out of the math. I imagine I could look up humidities, currents, temperatures, etc., but it's foolish to spend time on things that can be disproven through other scientific methods. Using light can be argued to be a poor way to experiment if the earth is flat or nearly flat, similar to useing a bubble level on an airplane and claim it stayed 'flat' during flight.
The variability I alluded to were with respect to temperature and humidity above the surface of a body of water which has variable currents and temperatures, creating a highly variable air environment above it. Density, correlated to temperature and humidity, affect refraction. Diffraction is also an issue. It's obvious that the laser diffracted across the distance you showed; it wasn't a pin point across the body of water. I also recently saw the "Answers in Genesis" FE article on YouTube a few days before your post: https://youtu.be/bu9S2r_TVwI?si=76clSxo8jUjsb4s1 which strengthened my, let's call it, belief. Also, the Foucault Pendulum experiment can easily show opposing rotation of the earth on the north/south poles and north and south of the equator (although, granted, I don't believe they took one to each of the poles to prove it). It's also possible to figure out the circumference of the earth using Eratosthenes method, which, in my mind, would only work on a sphere. While studying this further today, I ran across an article written by a 'scientist' that visited a Flat Earth conference and he brought up a good point about NOT trash talking flat earthers, but rather, to investigate the sociological aspects of the distrust and the fact that having information available for all hasn't led to a peaceful life existence but rather the converse. Isn't there a saying about how a little information plus a lot of motivation can lead to innovation or disaster? Is free energy really free, or will it come from elsewhere and unwittingly cause the destruction of other planets? Is the extraction of power from the wind a good thing or will there be other unintended consequences from removing energy from the atmosphere (wind)? Is non-ionizing radiation REALLY inert or are we destroying our existence one information carrying photon at a time?
I truly think/believe, based on my limited IQ and simple critical thinking capability plus the multitude of experiments and equations available on the internet, that an FE or a larger earth is improbable. However, (there's always a but), with the knowledge of scalar waves and the potential for splitting reality to travel unseen through gravity/time, or however it's done, I also know that I don't know much. I mean, angels and demons can exist in the room with me and I can't see them. I know nothing.
Were some of the moon landings faked? Likely, but unprovable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Were all the landings faked. Maybe. Will I know while inhabiting this human body? Doubtful. Does it help my salvation by pondering these things? Absolutely not! I should be spending my energy doing my job for the glory of God and loving God and my neighbor, but my curiosity gets in the way. Thank you for the blessing and may you and your's also be greatly blessed by God and may your cup overfloweth. Gotta run and do some work!
I think to address the question of air density above a body of water you will have to repeat the experiment at a different time of year when the air is either hotter or colder above the lake. Even repeating the experiment during the day would help add value.
Did you guys take note of the tempretures when you did your experiments?
If you get the exact same results at a different time of year (at different tempretures) then you can argue that air density is not making and impact. But it's hard because you need to know the exact tempretures across the entire distance the laser travels over the lake or prove it remains constant.
Another thing to consider when using lasers is beam diffusion. The laser beam slowly gets wider the further away you are from it, creating a larger visible area.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ookTfBP5sUU
The biggest and most important difference between what the ancients said and what was written is, their alleged words are copies of copies; none of their original works and speeches have ever been discovered. Most of these copies were done centuries later, and still others are outright forgeries. Thus, you cannot unequivocally prove that anything which has been attributed to them they actually said.
Another issue is, there are no records of these people -- Aristotle, Plato, Eurypides, none of them -- ever having truly existed. Like William Shakespeare. They just appear out of nowhere and write a great many things, which are widely disseminated and later canonized; and you must ask the question why: why are these people specifically chosen to venerate? Who decides that among scores of others throughout history these are the best of the best?
Cui bono?
The Science has recently outed itself, though it was hidden in plain sight (think: caduceus), as an enemy of God and man. Science attempts to explain what God is, define parameters to Him, but He is infinite. Everything Science tries to do is prove that men are smart enough to understand Him and His ways, and by further doing outsmart our Creator. Transgenderism, vaccinations, implants, astronomy -- all these are venues by which Science believes it can improve on God's creation, to transcend Him.
Who would want to do such a thing?
I'm not sure that science is in and of itself profane. Surely studying God's works is not intrinsically more evil than studying God's words?
That science has been corrupted is certainly true, but then again the devil quotes scripture too.
How do you explain the curved shadow partial moon when it and the sun are both in the early afternoon sky at the same time? There’s no reason for any obstruction yet you can see it with your own eyes 👀. As a professional engineer I have to surmise that Scipio is closer to the truth than your dismissive comment. Enjoy the NASA magic shows. They’re so much fun for those willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and questioning attitudes.
The sun illuminates the side of the moon facing the sun, and then darkness on the side facing away. The curve is due to the surface curve of the moon and not the shadow of the earth. I guess we’re both dismissive in our own ways. I’ve looked in depth at FE and it doesn’t hold water and, unlike some claim, is not scriptural. The FE believers often impact the truth of the Bible and twist the Word to fit their meanings. Like science, there is truth that is twisted. I hate people deceiving others for humor and that’s what I believe is happening with FE fairy tales. And bringing NASA into the conversation is disingenuous, like using Bill to give Hillary credibility. What state are you registered in? Have you stamped anything? What school of critical thinking did you attend?
Michigan State , Illinois, Michigan Indiana etc. . 1981 and the Bible is not sound source material since the old testament was incongruously slapped on the front of the new. There is recurrent wisdom in emulating the life of Jesus, the old book is just propaganda for the people who wear tiny little hats.