Somewhere tucked away in an office at the CIA a group of the disinfo branch are sitting around laughing giving each other high fives.

You have any proof of that? Even one single shred of evidence to back that up? Or you just shooting off cause you think you're so smart?

Somewhere tucked away in an office at the CIA, clandestine recruiters are sitting around laughing and giving each other high fives.

FTFY.

The problem with all this bullshit you've written is that the earth is demonstrably a spinning globe. You have no explanation for Foucault pendulums because you have no explanation for anything.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. You list:

• Michelson / Morley (1887 - establishes the earth is stationary)

What makes you think that the Michelson / Morley interferometer experiment establish that the earth is stationary? I am familiar with this experiment, the purpose behind it, and the results. See if you can explain the connection between this earth and your assertion -- which neither Michelson nor Morley would have agreed with, btw. Their experiment depends on the fact that the earth is moving. They took that as an assumption of their argument. So it's hard to imagine how their experiment could surprisingly "prove that the earth is stationary."

Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. I confess, I had to look up the Sagnac experiment. Imagine my surprise to learn that it relates to fiber optic gyro windings, something I have worked on in my time!

The effect Sagnac discovered isn't caused by any ether. It's caused by the light taking a slightly longer or shorter path when the winding rotates. I happen to know quite a bit about this topic in modern terms. I can see why a person from the phlogiston-and-ether days would have speculated that relativity was like an ether, but nowadays we know what it is. There's no ether.

How is it outrageous that he works with fiber-optic gyroscopes? They're not uncommon in several industries, like surveying and aerospace, for example.

But yes, the Sagnac effect is compatible with relativity, but has a completely classical explanation, which is that which /u/sliquidsnake already gave you:

It's caused by the light taking a slightly longer or shorter path when the winding rotates.

I worked on fiber-optic gyroscopes, about 10 years ago. Ironically, it's one of two subjects that I can't really talk that much about. But I can rest assured that they do not rely on the lumineferous ether.

Yes, I do moderate two subreddits related to the shape of the earth. One of them /r/trueearth, is a place where you can propose that the earth is flat, and participate in a well-moderated discussion. The other, /r/fedo, is for discussion of the conspiracy that you have fallen victim to.

As for my experience with fiber optic gyros, no I don't care to dox myself. As for not knowing of the Sagnac experiment, who cares? The technology of fiber gyros is entrenched. People don't go study ancient history when they apply well-understood technology.

Your don't know what you're talking about

No it's not.

Man, I don't know if there's enough pot on earth to make me even consider this.

What?

Wait, you have only 4 experiments that (very indirectly) prove that the earth is flat ? only 4 ? Really ?

If anything, these experiments you linked proved that light behaves in a strange way. But I don't see how it should convince me that the earth is flat.

I mean, I have seen thousands of photos of earth seen from space, hours of videos, I've looked at ships disappearing below the horizon, I've seen the sun set below the horizon, I used telescopes for my own amusement, performed myself mathematical computations about parallax and predictions of eclipses, and not a single thing was inconsistent with the globe model.

And somehow, 4 little experiments about light should convince me that everything I know about earth is a conspiracy ?

How many experiments would it take to convince you that the earth is not flat ?

None, he won't change his mind

Lol suppressed topic addressed by gatekeepers on national tv. Yeah, real suppressed topics don't even get mentioned in jest.

https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/4o8zo7/7_as_the_solar_system_heads_towards_the_milky/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It's harder to program this warning message than it is to automatically change those links using JavaScript.

Moves relative to whom?

Flat Earthers need to make some of the biggest logical jumps in existence in order for their theory to hold together.

• they can't explain the Belt of Venus
• they can't explain the mechanism behind Foucault's Pendulum
• they can't explain lunar eclipses
• they can't explain why boats disappear from the bottom up when sailing over the horizon
• they can't explain why the sun is always nearly the exact same size
• they can't explain why the sun rises moving to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and moving left in the Southern
• they can't explain why there are different sets of stars in each of the Hemispheres

could go on and on ... but there really is no use.

Literally ALL of those are addressed in my links. You haven't done your due diligence my friend. If you could go on and on, it would be great if anything you said addressed MY post, which you are commenting in. If you'd like to start your own thread claiming flat earth is bullshit, you're free to do so.

The Belt of Venus is explained in your links? Can you provide me with a direct link to it being addressed? You've posted quite a bit of material.

That is related to the way light and sunlight works and wouldn't necessarily require a separate explanation under the flat model to the best of my understanding - if you think it would, why would it?

Because it requires the sun to drop below the horizon in order to cast the shadow of the Earth on the other side. This is visible every clear day and demonstrates that the sun does in fact fall below the horizon and doesn't simply move away due to perspective.

And if you can't debunk Michelson / Morley and Sagnac experiment combo then it would appear the earth is flat and motionless would it not? You didn't really address any of my materials.

I don't think you actually understand how these experiments were conducted. The Michelson/Morley experiment took the movement of the Earth into account, you seem unfamiliar with what it was actually supposed to demonstrate.

Can you experimentally reproduce the belt of Venus effect by making a spherical sun and having it set over a ball? Once you do I'll believe that's one potential way to cause that effect - as it stands there's no reason to believe it's caused as a byproduct of the heliocentric model.

Certainly you can, download a 3D program (maybe something like Terragen) and recreate it yourself. You won't even have to set the atmospheric conditions, you can simply use a plane on the opposite side of the sun to demonstrate the effect as trying to reproduce the atmospheric effects would take far too much rendering time.

Here is an example of it actually moving upwards, which would require the sun to be going below a horizon, not simply moving further away:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/the-belt-of-venus/

You can view this yourself on a daily basis.

In terms of the other points of your post, it seems as though you've also completely rejected Special and General Relativity in order to shoehorn your claims into your poor understanding of the experiments conducted. There is really very little point in demonstrating where you are incorrect when you reject one of the most heavily tested and scrutinized scientific theories of current scientific understanding.

Again with the belt of Venus - you're assuming the heliocentric model in order to prove it.

No I'm not, it only works because of the heliocentric model. There is no "proving" it, you can go outside and watch it on any clear day.

There are many experiments demonstrating the validity of SR and GR, I'm surprised you haven't come across them in all of your Youtube research:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/fulltext.html

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/fulltext.html

You don't seem to get it - I don't believe you about the belt of Venus being produced by the sun setting and shape of the earth casting a shadow. I don't believe you because it's speculative reasoning.

So now you don't even trust your eyes? Go and watch it yourself, you don't even need a visual aid. Again, what is the explanation for the Belt of Venus under the flat Earth model?

As far as the relativity "proofs" - I'm not digging through pages upon pages of your information while you stubbornly refuse to address the simple M / M and Sagnac proofs. If you'd like to present these so-called "proofs" in some sort of understandable format I'd be happy to address them :)

Certainly, here is one of the conclusions. You will have to actually read the papers if you want more details. It's quite surprising that you are so interested in disproving the theory yet are unwilling to educate yourself further regarding it:

Conclusions

We find that general relativity has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny. The question then arises, why bother to continue to test it? One reason is that gravity is a fundamental interaction of nature, and as such requires the most solid empirical underpinning we can provide. Another is that all attempts to quantize gravity and to unify it with the other forces suggest that the standard general relativity of Einstein is not likely to be the last word. Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; the theory contains no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed. Thus every test of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for new physics. Although it is remarkable that this theory, born 90 years ago out of almost pure thought, has managed to survive every test, the possibility of finding a discrepancy will continue to drive experiments for years to come.

I'm certain the effect is real - I just doubt your conclusions as to what causes it :)

So what causes it in the Flat Earth model then? It is readily explained and predicted by the heliocentric model, so I'd like to see what the mechanism is under the Flat Earth model that would cause the same effect.

What I'm asking you is - what experiments are these that solidify relativity?

I just linked you to two of them which you were unwilling to read.

What can you do to prove that it's all relative?

I just linked you to two experiments which provide answers to what you are asking, but you were unwilling to go through them.

Because the experiments I linked and linked explications in for my OP prove conclusively that relativity is and always has been bunk.

No they don't, they demonstrate a lack of understanding on your part.

Because if it were 'setting' due to perspective you would see a change in size of the sun, which obviously doesn't happen.

And I definitely tried to read your experiments - could you please explain the experimental portions which prove relativity? Cause I bet you can't :)

It seems as though you're actually using your overwhelmingly mind-boggling ignorance as a way to get people to do your physics homework for you. I've linked you to two papers, with bookmarked sections, and you are still unable to decipher the information contained therein. Nevertheless, you've found somebody who is willing to take the time to educate those that are unwilling to educate themselves, so here are some relevant sections:

http://i.imgur.com/a9sn0IQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RH2lU2o.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8kItmwF.jpg

Question: How high above the Earth does FE think the sun is? How fast is the sun moving over the Earth? And if the atmosphere obfuscates the sun's light as it moves away (sunset?), why does it set over the horizon instead of disappearing high in the distant sky?

By the way, all of the links under your "beginner sections on the best aggregate sites" have been deleted:

https://aplanetruth.info/first-questions-asked

The lack of interference proves either that the earth is flat or that there is no ether frame.

Or third option, some unknown phenomenon that has nothing to do with ether frame or the shape of the earth. How can you be sure there is not some unknown force acting here ?

The Sagnac experiment conclusively proves the ether DOES exist.

Again, why isn't there a third option ?

Moreover, it seems that you are dismissing many experiments that seem to point that the earth is spherical by saying that they are "not provable". But somehow you blindly believe the Sagnac experiment, so I guess you think its conclusion is provable. I find this cognitive dissonance hard to believe ...

Did you perform the Sagnac experiment yourself to check the results ? Can you do the computations ? If not, then why should you trust the results of the Sagnac experiments more than other experiments that prove the earth is spherical ?

You should be banned.

I disagree. This gives the community an opportunity to observe a psyop first hand in the wild! It's a wonderful teaching tool and given the right amount of critical thinking can point you in the true direction.

Most people around here are the height of ignorance

There's a lot of evidence the world is flat and motionless. There's also a lot of evidence that NASA is fraudulent. Do yourself a favor and look into it.

I did look into it and I'm glad I did even if others don't I don't care at this point

You have any proof of that? Even one single shred of evidence to back that up? Or you just shooting off cause you think you're so smart?

Somewhere tucked away in an office at the CIA, clandestine recruiters are sitting around laughing and giving each other high fives.

FTFY.

I'm certain the effect is real - I just doubt your conclusions as to what causes it :)

So what causes it in the Flat Earth model then? It is readily explained and predicted by the heliocentric model, so I'd like to see what the mechanism is under the Flat Earth model that would cause the same effect.

What I'm asking you is - what experiments are these that solidify relativity?

I just linked you to two of them which you were unwilling to read.

What can you do to prove that it's all relative?

I just linked you to two experiments which provide answers to what you are asking, but you were unwilling to go through them.

Because the experiments I linked and linked explications in for my OP prove conclusively that relativity is and always has been bunk.

No they don't, they demonstrate a lack of understanding on your part.

By the way, all of the links under your "beginner sections on the best aggregate sites" have been deleted:

https://aplanetruth.info/first-questions-asked