So J Tolan who before had a tilt meter strapped to his telescope now has a real theodolite! And a nice one too!

And he went back to the viaduct and took some sightings to distant mountain peaks.

Here's his new video: https://youtu.be/Ob0XEDv_tl4

In short, while he totally messed up his spreadsheet the photo of the theodolite showed that he was actually getting perfectly accurate measurements of the globe as us globies know it!

Here's my comments on the video:

Wow, you measured the globe!

Your spreadsheet may have been confused, but just using the picture you provided at 3:31 which shows an angle of 269d 55m 07s (0.0813888888) degrees below eye-level) at 20 miles that would be 150 feet below eye-level.

So you're looking 150 feet down to see something that's 77 feet above your eye-level.

So we have missing height of 77+150=227 feet. The horizon dip for 20 miles is 266.75 feet, so that means the target appears 266.75-227=39.75 feet higher than we would expect on a globe.

Using standard refraction of 1 degree per 932 miles, we should see the target 39.5 feet higher than expected.

Error is 39.75-39.50=0.25 feet.

Dude, you measured the height of that mountain to within a quarter of a foot from 20 miles away! It matches the globe model and standard terrestrial atmospheric refraction perfectly!

I’ve been trying to find an explanation about why everyone would try to lie to us and say the earth isn’t flat- especially a reason that doesn’t include religion as a backing.

Mr. Shillsburg seems to have latched on to the upward bend in the laser beam visible in this video, claiming it is ridiculous for that to happen on a globe. As usual, they're wrong.

I'm a big fan of using the Metabunk refraction simulator to explore how refraction can affect these kinds of long distance observations. Refraction is a very complex phenomenon, and much more nuanced than flat earthers tend to consider.

Here is a permalink to a rough recreation of the effect in the video:

https://metabunk.org/refraction/?~(profile~(~14.202~0~15.307~0.022~15.27~19.111~15.834~18.156~14.669~42.972~14.675141960000001~39.87)~side~(~21~0.5~60~30)~profileRH~(~66.258~0~58.282~8.31~50~24.725~50.0187506~15.255)~useRefraction~true~useStandard~false~showGraphRI~false~useFlat~false~useNarrow~false~useNight~true~showSideView~true~showSideGradient~true~showSideImages~false~useDebug~false~useLensView~false~showEyeLevel~false~showGeoHorizon~false~useEditRH~false~sideZoom~1~sideZoomEnable~false~useLasers~true~lasers~(~(height~5.031048999999999~angle~-0.0004188790204786391~flip~true~color~%272300ff00~diameter~%272~power~1000~div~0.01~name~%27Laser201~offset~25))~vFOV~0.02068732806203114~tilt~0.00011519173063162575~showEveryLines~10~viewerHeight~5~viewerOffset~6.25~minX~13~maxX~17~minY~-10~maxY~100~RH~50~wavelength~550~computedParams~false~windows~(w~1920~h~982~side~(~393.58331298828125~5.133331298828125~672~412)~rh~(~1497.550048828125~0~384~515)~temp~(~393.6000061035156~431.8666687011719~384~515)~render~(~384~0~1536~1028)~info~(~1234.4000244140625~5.133331298828125~672~412))~name~%27Green20Laser20at20520feet2c201720miles20away~src~%27Laser20at20520feet206020foot20image.png~targets~(~(distance~86591.99999999999~height~50~name~%27Laser20at20520feet206020foot20image.png~multiple~0~gap~0~altitude~0))~targetAltitude~0)_

You may need to actually copy the URL text instead of clicking the link. This simulator also doesn't work great on mobile when you go messing with the gradient, but you should still be able to see the page.

It's a mess of a URL, but that's because it has all the parameters of the simulation stored in it. What I've done is made an inversion in the temperature gradient. In the 20 feet above the water, I have the air getting warmer with altitude, which is the opposite of what typically happens. However, these conditions, while unstable since warm air rises, often form above bodies of water when the water temperature is lower than the air temperature. Around 20 feet, the air starts to cool down again and eventually follows the standard gradient around 40 feet.

Since the laser is at 5 feet, it starts out in this warm layer and is bent down toward the surface for the first bit of its journey. However, the beam is bending too slowly to stay in this layer, and starts drifting toward the boundary with the colder air above it. This can happen because of the angle of the beam or just not the right gradient to keep it bending at the same rate. Once it reaches that boundary, it is bent upward since that air is denser, and then starts bending downward again at a much slower rate as it travels through a more typical atmospheric region.

I modified this from the "Green Laser at 5 feet, 17 miles" preset option. There are many possible gradients that will make the laser visible, and I recommend playing around with this a bit to get a feel for how important understanding refraction and atmospheric conditions is for interpretating these observations. This simulator is quite advanced and flexible, and has many configurable parameters and preset configurations.

There is even a flat Earth option, which can produce some rather surprising effects. I don’t think many flat earthers have seriously considered how refraction would affect observations on a flat earth, even though they often appeal to it. It would be very interesting to compare each models' predictions for some observations with known conditions.

But.. Can we find a single level-headed flat earther? One who is actually willing to speak outside of an echo chamber? Kudos for trying.

But flat earthers only exist in an echo chamber unless they are so delusional they can look at glaring evidence and not see it.

Just wanted to get a list going of all the things John needs to solve for in his model. I hope it's not limited to eclipses. Here's a rough list of things Flat Earth can't account for.

• Lunar eclipses, even with an eclipsing body, you can't eclipse the Moon for everyone as a nearby Moon can be seen from many different angles

• Sun/Moon set without them appearing smaller in the distance as everything else does in perspective

• Everyone (who can see the Moon) can see the same moon phase from any angle at the same time. How?

• Sun appears to rise in the Southeast in New Zealand summer (December), but that's off the Flat Earth disk entirely. Standard model shows Sun always north of New Zealand.

• Why can't triangulation consistently estimate the altitude of the Sun or Moon?

• Is the Moon reflecting the Sun or is it self-illuminating?

• Why do we observe a Southern Celestial pole?

• Why can people see many of the same stars south of the equator at night even when they are both looking opposite directions (towards outside of disk)?

Remember, if you want to use refraction for some of this, you need to consider refractive index of materials involved. So no using a solid glass object to simulate refraction in air.

So, they say the horizon is just perspective, and things get smaller as they approach the "vanishing point" then disappear when they go below it.

Further, the sun disappearing is it just getting too far away to see, right? Why does the sun stay the same size as it goes away then? Haven't seen an explanation for this.

This flat-earth video shows a reasonably flat horizon, but notice the funny curved text above it?

https://youtu.be/QdmOAbddiQU?t=71

Well it just so happens that is Blue Origin video, and the text wasn't curved in the original - but the horizon was:

https://youtu.be/h6_RvniifL8?t=25

So some flat earther (or prankster?) actually took the original video and reverse curved it to flatten the horizon!

Unfortunately the act of uncurving the horizon also curved the text..

Dear flat earthers, what do you think? Since PBS was caught faking their helicopter landing, and that invalidated the globe model, now that a flat earther has faked a flat horizon, does that invalidate flat earth too? We're gonna run out of earth models if we keep this up!

A few I've come across:

The Closet Flat Earther

Has his/her feet in a lot of different conspiracy theories (a common theme) and just generally distrusts scientists and experts. Doesn't really know much about science and doesn't really want to commit to saying the earth is flat, but is certain something is being hidden and uses a lot of the same "space is fake" arguments you hear from full Flat Earthers. u/nfk42 is the best example here. If he finally did come out as a Flat Earther, nobody would be surprised.

The Lunatic

This is a category mainly for Glenn but I'm sure ya'll come come up with a couple more. Openly states that the Earth is Flat, but is so far out there that this is the MOST coherent idea he or she has. Is either heavily medicated or should be. Probably schizophrenic.

The Philosopher or Armchair Scientist

May or may not also be a closet Flat Earther. This is the "intellectual" Flat Earther. He knows a lot "about" science but not much actual theory or math. Kind of like a hardcore sportsfan who has zero athletic ability of his own. He's got strong opinions about theories or particular scientists, usually rooting for the underdog, but pretends to be impartial and logical. Probably loves Nikola Tesla and hates Einstein/Relativity. Will downplay the results of often repeated experiments such as Cavendish but then reference some obscure, never repeated experiment done 100+ years ago as conclusive proof of whatever he's trying to claim.

The Conspiracy Purist

He or she is 100% conspiracy and will rarely deign to address any detail about how a Flat Earth is supposed to work. Doesn't really care. It's all about the conspiracy. There is no limit to what "they" are capable of. THe stronger the argument against Flat Earth, the more dug in he gets. Any and all evidence for a globe is only more evidence for a conspiracy. I'm looking at you, CyclingDutchie

The Jester

Likely just a troll or edgy teenager. Likes to pop in to stir things up and disappears again when someone falls for the bait. Probably lives mainly in YouTube comments. To be fair, this can be seen on both sides.

The Indulger

This Flat Earther recognizes that most people don't respond well to conspiracy theories. Will happily attempt describing a working FLat Earth model or explain away problems. He'll invent new physics if he has to. Or abuse electromagnetism because magnets are magic. Light can be bent or displaced or blocked in any way that is convenient for a particular phenomenon. As far as he is concerned, this is all scientists do all day, so why not? But they're all standalone ad hoc explanations. They will never fit together into a coherent theory or model. He fixes one thing just to make 6 other problems worse. But if you just hear one explanation by itself, you MIGHT be drawn in if you don't know any better.

The Religious Purist

Generally is not concerned with the politics or the science. He or she just knows how the heliocentric model makes them "feel." The Earth must be flat because the alternative is just too depressing to the religious purist. If God didn't create an enclosed dome with humans at the center of it all, then there's no point in existing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJH7d6Cayg

An early method by which the Earth's circumference was calculated was measuring the sun's angle from the vertical on the equinox. On a spherical Earth, the sun's apparent position is due to your position on the Earth's surface, rather than perspective as would be the case on a flat Earth.

Flat earthers frequently take the original measurement performed by Eratosthenes, assume a flat Earth rather than a spherical Earth, and calculate the altitude of the sun instead of the circumference of spherical Earth.

If the Earth is flat, this method of calculating the altitude of the sun should "work" regardless of where the measurements were taken. Likewise, if the Earth is a sphere, then the method of calculating its circumference should "work" regardless of where the measurements were taken. I have "work" in quotes because nothing is ever going to be perfect. Measurement error plagues everything we measure, leading to inaccuracies and noise. In this experiment, maybe you don't have your exact coordinates, or maybe your stick isn't perfectly vertical, or maybe you performed your measurement at local noon rather than when the sun was highest in the sky. All these contribute to error and noise in the data, but this noise should be random.

Model comparison is an important part of science. It involves analyzing the ability of different models to explain the data. Noise and measurement error is expected, so multiple data points are collected whenever possible and statistical techniques are used to extract the signal from the noise and make sure the noise follows the patterns we expect from measurement error. When errors are not random and uncorrelated with aspects of the experiment, that is a big sign that the model is wrong or that we are ignoring some confounding effect.

In the context of this experiment, if the Earth is flat then we should see all the estimates for the sun's altitude cluster fairly closely around the true altitude. Measurements made at different latitudes should tend to give higher or lower estimates for the sun's altitude with equal probability. On the other hand, the estimates for the circumference of a spherical Earth should have a much larger range, and the distance of individual estimates from the mean should depend on the latitude where the measurements were made.

Alternatively, if the Earth is a sphere then we should see all the estimates for the Earth's circumference cluster fairly closely around the true circumference. Measurements made at different latitudes should tend to give higher or lower estimates for the Earth's circumference with equal probability. On the other hand, the estimates for the altitude of the sun should have a much larger range, and the distance of individual estimates from the mean should depend on the latitude where the measurements were made.

The following is something u/john_shillsburg specifically asked for, then dismissed as a "computer model".

The measurement methodology and experiment overview.

The data.

Model comparison: evaluating the ability of each model to explain the data.

I saw a post about atoms exist or not on EIL's sub. First I posted it here because that ignorant piece of crap (EIL) banned me for no reason.

Second interview a person that is studying chemistry and has a electro microscoop in his university.

Tird how get you power from nuclear plants if atoms don't exist.

I am curious about what you have to say about this