I have been to the edge of the Earth. It's true.. If you jump off you will land into a room full of 100 virgins. You should go check it out.

Plot twist: All gay virgins

So there are still 100 virgins? You just left them there, being all virginy and all?

Here is a plethora of flat earth information. You should go check it out!

https://www.reddit.com/r/theworldisflat/comments/691xk9/flat_earth_compilation

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 replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

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

Heres the problem. Regardless of what NASA does we know the Earth is a globe using very simple tests.

We dont need NASA to do this.

Then you probably aren't doing them right.

Which ones have you tried?

Measuring the temperature of moonlight and various line of sight tests - Moonlight has different properties than sunlight which goes against what the notion that moonlight is merely reflected light from the sun - and the line of sight tests prove over and over that the shape of the earth is that of an irregular plane. Thanks for playing.

Wait... Cooling moonlight has been thoroughly debunked. I'll explain it to you when I have more time.

Line of sight tests? Even Rowbotham believed in refraction... Most are debunked.

So you tested moonlight and you looked? Is that the extent?

Testing moonlight hasn't been debunked just because you say it has :)

I said I'll address it later when I get more time, I'm actually thinking we've gone over this before

And yes, I find that long line of sight tests are an effective piece of proof for the flat earth. Why wouldn't measuring a straight segment over long distances not prove a flat earth? Why is it that all amateur footage taken shows that all lakes and segments of ocean are totally flat? How can periscopes see around the curve of the earth? How can railguns shoot along a curve? Why has universal gravitation never been conclusively proven?

Sorry again, but it's certainly flat. Check out /r/fepe if you're interested.

Fepe is dead and you haven't actually done any tests... What are the numbers you used to Calc sight line distance and elevation?

/r/fepe isn't dead, it's a storehouse of information :)

Theres like 5 posts there... Most from months ago.

I am extremely interested in why you think the moonlight experiment has been debunked

Lets approach it from a different angle? Is it the moonlight itself or is it something else?

Lets say I make 2 hot pockets and put both into their own styrofoam box I cover one and leave the other uncovered.

Which one cools quicker? Probably the one without a cover, right?

Same phenomena here. If there is moonlight we know that cloud cover is minimal. AKA there is no cover to the box, this is meteorology 101 objects cool quicker if the clouds arent trapping the heat from escaping into the upper atmosphere.

So is it the moonlight or is it because on a clear night heat is more able to dissipate?

Did you test both in a vacuum? For example put two objects in a sealed clear box and see which one cools quicker?

An experiment that I have done repeatedly is to place thermometers in various locations on or near a full moon. One thermometer is exposed to moonlight, one is in shade. Even when various locations have been used (enclosed porch, roof, open field, pavement, shoebox, etc) the thermometer that is exposed to moonlight reads cooler by ~2-3 degrees F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling#Radiative_cooling_on_Earth.27s_surface_at_night

Radiative cooling, a well known phenomena that explains why objects exposed to open air (No cloud cover) cool faster.

One control I have introduced to control for other environmental factors is a magnifying glass. You can take a magnifying glass to focus the rays of the moon and the effect intensifies to be closer to 5 degrees or more.

Sorry but I dont believe you. At least that it cools 5 degrees with a moonlight lens, right? Sounds completely fabricated.

Additionally I've added randomized human components to the test - I focus the rays of the moon on someone's arm or fingers and after some time they can always feel the cold and even point to when blindfolded.

Anecdotal.

You said you knew this was bunk - if I could execute this experiment as I've described it here would that be adequate for you?

I think youre making up a good chunk of this. The tests you performed fly in the face of basic physics and there is either something you arent telling us that affects the outcome or you are straight up lying.

do you really think it's necessary to libel and attack me? :)

That is certainly not libel. I legitimately think you made up at least part of that.

The tests you performed will never result in that outcome.

Film it and disprove everything we know about the world. I have a feeling you wont though.

Again your attitude is totally backwards and unbecoming of science here

Because Im not blindly following your results? How exactly is that science?

I'm asking your opinion IF I can show you the following scenarios which I've already demonstrated to myself and groups of friends, can you think of any reason why that should be the case?

Demonstrate away. Ive done this exact test before and didnt get those results. So who is correct here?

Radiative cooling would not be amplified by a magnifying glass and would be present no matter what phase of the moon was active.

Which is why I said you are either leaving out part of the experiment or lying.

If you'd like to design your own experiment about this to prove me wrong I invite you to do but again all you've done is blindly claim I'm a liar and that I'm wrong

Ive already done it and received different results. So what am I to believe? Myself or a guy on the internet who is getting dramatically different results than anyone has previously?

you're literally just taking shots from the peanut gallery - which is super not science.

And again you are asking me to go against my knowledge and experience to support your idea. Im not blindly believing you.

I'm asking you to critique my experiment - if I can demonstrate that there is a cooling effect that can be amplified by magnifying glass and it more present during the fullest phases of the moon then that seems to be pretty conclusive to me, but I'm open to other interpretations - just to be extra clear I am challenging you to come up with an interpretation that is not "no you lie" - if you don't have one, that's fine.

Then please by all means document it and show us the results.

Thats what Im saying, I think you are making shit up to fit your worldview because you are the only one able to produce this phenomena. As a scientifically minded fellow how do you interpret the fact that this test has been performed by multiple people with similar outcomes except yours? You are the outlier and need to prove your position.

So I guess no, you can't think of any other explanation?

If I run a test 100 times and one of those times gets a dramatically different result why should I assume that one result is more accurate than the 99 times that agreed?

What experiment like this have you done one hundred times?

I havent done it a hundred but others have performed it. The results I recieved and you received are different.

I've only performed my experiment 6 or 8 ish, I'm not positive - but my results have been consistent with what I've reported here each time.

Again, I do not believe you.

I understand that though you haven't performed any experiments, you're sure that the ones I've done are wrong and I'm lying. We've also established that you are not able to come up with any alternative explanations.

Are you aware that the radiative cooling explanation also requires some atmospheric conditions to be present? Would be interesting to see if the cooling is still present in the different of light / shade when the moon is not full and whether there is cloud cover or not. But if my claims are true, then that needs explaining.

I have literally done this experiment and I literally explained how this works.

Just the same that if you flew me up 100 miles and I saw candy cane stripe designated North Pole I suppose I would have to admit the world is round - but we both know that's not going to happen :)

I don't know what that means

But myself and countless others online have already produced and reproduced the above experiment and you have not. It's still funny to me that you're so certain you're right without any actual experimental experience. Anyway depending on weather conditions I should be able to have some footage soon!

Good work on that footage

Thanks for your input!

No worries

Your explanation of the cooling effect observed as merely radiative cooling is asinine :)

Your opinion.

As I've stated repeatedly, it does not account for the consistent effect under varying atmospheric conditions, magnifying glass, or multiple locations.

To which I said you are lying.

Yet one more, I do not believe you.

Prove it.

enjoy your scoffing while I continue to go produce actual science

You cant just say "I do science" and not produce your results.

If I told you I did science that showed the Earth is a triangle but didnt show you the results you probably wouldnt believe me, right?

I cant just say the Earth is a triangle.

Just because you don't believe me doesn't mean you get to keep me from speaking

I would never suggest that. Im just suggesting you are making it up

:)

there is a difference. So whenever you can get around to quantifying and recording your experiments you should. I would be insane to believe anyone blindly on the internet.

The experiments that verify that moonlight is cooling are publicly available for you all over the internet

And the opposite is true too....

I've affirmed these experiments in my own life.

Yet when I do them the affirm that its bullshit. See how that works?

If there's lots of evidence outside of me and I'm not even presenting my evidence, how can I be making it up?

Most of those tests are broken as fuck and you only see the ones where the desired result is produced. Confirmation bias combined with poor science is the result of these tests.

You see the problem here right? I am unable to reproduce these tests, there is ample info that its bullshit and bad science and yet you claim the opposite.

There is no such thing as cold light.

It is literally impossible for cold light to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling#Radiative_cooling_on_Earth.27s_surface_at_night

More of a bumpy disk earf lets be honest

/r/fepe isn't dead, it's a storehouse of information :)

Theres like 5 posts there... Most from months ago.

I am extremely interested in why you think the moonlight experiment has been debunked

Lets approach it from a different angle? Is it the moonlight itself or is it something else?

Lets say I make 2 hot pockets and put both into their own styrofoam box I cover one and leave the other uncovered.

Which one cools quicker? Probably the one without a cover, right?

Same phenomena here. If there is moonlight we know that cloud cover is minimal. AKA there is no cover to the box, this is meteorology 101 objects cool quicker if the clouds arent trapping the heat from escaping into the upper atmosphere.

So is it the moonlight or is it because on a clear night heat is more able to dissipate?

Did you test both in a vacuum? For example put two objects in a sealed clear box and see which one cools quicker?