WHAT IF the Earth was Actually Flat?

[newmisty]

1 clear & simple questions for you sol:

Please, in as succinct a manner as you can, explain in simple terms your understanding as to the size and shape of "the Earth" and what causes the seasons and hemispheric differences between the USA and Australia based upon your data?

Sorry, do you not understand the question sol?

 

[solarion]

I understand it just fine. You, for some reason, incorrectly believe that I'm under some obligation to respond to your questions while completely ignoring mine. To say nothing of the fact that when I do respond to your questions you have a tendency to insult me by accusing me of not responding in a back handed way. Then when you finally see the response, you simply drop the entire conversation without a word.

You've no interest in meaningful discourse, you've interest only in defending your indoctrination. You think that because you can regurgitate a bunch of "facts" that got you an "A" on a test in skool that somehow you "know" a bunch of stuff. Yet, you seemingly also think that surface tension makes ocean water "bendy". You do not even understand your own model, yet you defend it vigorously.

Do the surfaces of Earth's oceans display concavity consistent with the ball Earth model...due to meniscus effect?

 

[BarnacleBob]

70% of the earth is water.
It is un-carbonated.

This makes the earth technically flat.

 

[solarion]

Nevermind that people literally zoom in on individual moon craters with relatively cheap hand held zoom cameras. ...yeah they're zooming in on something 238,900 miles away. Gimme a break.

P900 pic

Looks like more detail than NASA pix while they were pretending to orbit the moon.

 

[newmisty]

I understand it just fine. You, for some reason, incorrectly believe that I'm under some obligation to respond to your questions while completely ignoring mine. To say nothing of the fact that when I do respond to your questions you have a tendency to insult me by accusing me of not responding in a back handed way. Then when you finally see the response, you simply drop the entire conversation without a word.

You've no interest in meaningful discourse, you've interest only in defending your indoctrination. You think that because you can regurgitate a bunch of "facts" that got you an "A" on a test in skool that somehow you "know" a bunch of stuff. Yet, you seemingly also think that surface tension makes ocean water "bendy". You do not even understand your own model, yet you defend it vigorously.

Do the surfaces of Earth's oceans display concavity consistent with the ball Earth model...due to meniscus effect?

You asked for evidence of "bendy water" and I provided it. In addition to your strawman arguments your conjecture about others leaves large holes in your narrative of "seeking the truth".

Your refusal to answer such a harmless and simple question that literally is the entire basis of this thread that you are always posting in is the Smoking Gun that anyone with a modicum of critical thinking needs to determine your genuine intent.

 

[DodgebyDave]

 

[solarion]

You asked for evidence of "bendy water" and I provided it.

No, you took what I said out of context and then showed me a test tube with fluid in it to ignore what I said. You only wasted my time...then dropped the conversation entirely. Your role in this thread, like the useless post above this one is to waste other people's time dealing with your distaste for things you personally find challenging given your inflexible belief structures.

The conversation could have led to a discussion on magnetism and its effects, buy you're not interested in discussion.

Show me the evidence for bendy water. Prove the surface of the ocean displays convexity consistent with the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter.

A test tube of liquid isn't a response...it's a bad joke.

 

[BarnacleBob]

Milwaukee spotted by Michigan 70 miles away. Scientist say "don't worry, its just a mirage".... LMAO

 

[solarion]

The media has been milking that mirage excuse for why humans can see further on Earth than they would be able if Earth were actually a ball 25k miles in circumference forever. It doesn't make any sense any more than the fact that there's no curvature visible at 35k feet, but there are vague excuses for ignoring anything that contradicts the mainstream narrative.

Here's Neil DeGasbag Tyson debunking Felix Baumgartner's claim that Earth's curvature was visible at 128k feet.

...and here's an alleged picture of a tiny ball Earth, apparently slightly larger than the state of New Mexico which allegedly shows the curvature of Earth.

Like stars in space/time, these guys cannot even settle once and for all on what propaganda they choose to peddle. Hell, I still have zero idea where space/time officially begins even. Ballers can't even figure out how their own model is supposed to work. Is the moon within the air sphere? ...or not? Hell, I dunno...and apparently neither do ball Earth theorists.

 

[arminius]

What's fascinating about this is the vociferousness of the globe proponents, when the absolute truth is that they and we have no way of truly being able to discern such, once one grasps the gaslighting of the media and our schools throughout our lives.

Why are they so adamant is my question.

 

[solarion]

no way of truly being able to discern such

Agree it's difficult to determine with absolute certainly, for oneself, what shape the Earth. That said, there are a number of things one can do to test whether the Earth is a spinning ball 7917 miles in diameter. Maths really do not simply go away merely because NASA finds them occasionally inconvenient.

Lasers fired across large bodies of water...particularly frozen lakes...show zero evidence of convexity.

Photos taken at distances beyond what one should be able to see...show a lack of convexity consistent with the surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter. This is made particularly easy now with a decent super zoom cameras costing only a few hundred bones. IR photography is particularly damning as it cuts through a whole lot of air opacity.

Flights of as little as 30k feet in altitude show a horizon that appears to drop off only a fraction of what would be observed on a ball Earth 7917 miles in diameter...and even that may be merely an illusion created by the opacity of air.

We are, all of us, trying to sort through the things we were taught as absolute truths when we were young. Which of those things are actually true and which of those things are lies? I have zero doubt that the mainstream model of a ball Earth 24,901 miles in circumference is a lie. What shape Earth actually is, I do not know, but as long as one "believes" a lie, then that one will never seek truth. ...and that's why this particular lie is, to my mind, so very troubling. ...it's obscuring the vast majority of humans from seeing...something about the world around them.

Why are they so adamant is my question.

Firmly entrenched belief structures defend themselves. Twenty years ago, I may have been among those that staunchly defend ball Earth theory...or perhaps I'd have simply ignored the topic...dismissing those asking questions as "anti-science". It's painful to question beliefs long held and easy to avoid facing the notion that you've been lied to your entire life by those you trusted, particularly with regard to belief structures as fundamental as this.

 

[BarnacleBob]

Stunning long range imaging over 100 miles in infrared reveals the amazing flat earth reality!​

 

[newmisty]

. Your role in this thread, like the useless post above this one is to waste other people's time dealing with your distaste for things you personally find challenging given your inflexible belief structures.

.

That is an obviously classic example of projection.

Let's review:

For those reading, I have now tried three or four times to ask very simple direct questions relating specifically to the topic of this thread, while there are three or four responses from mr. Sunshine (Sunshine Alley?)that completely put a stop to my attempts at civil, mature discussion.

Sol, what is your understanding or current belief pertaining to the approximate size & shape of this landmass that our civilization inhabits. Again, according to your own observations & research?

 

[solarion]

Thanks joking...er newmisty. I guess you're done with the convexity or concavity of the surface of the oceans due to surface tension conversation then? ...I seem to have misplaced your rebuttal. Happen to have made any head way on that air sphere momentum savings and loan program you theorized about...once?

...and then refused to comment upon further for three years and counting?

Oops, my sincere apology newmisty...I again mistook you for joking. No doubt you understand the confusion.

I realize that in the absence of any observational evidence...verifiable by anyone, to support one's belief structures, that one may be prone instead to resort to attempts at discrediting those that disagree with your own views, but such tactics do not, in fact, move forward reasonable discourse.

 

[solarion]

Stunning long range imaging over 100 miles in infrared reveals the amazing flat earth reality!​

Ball Earth theorists desperately need to come up with something better than vague claims of "refraction" to explain away the thousands of photographs that would be impossible on a ball Earth 7917 miles in diameter. The problem is only going to become more glaring as more and more people come to understand the maths involved and then go seeking proof armed with a superzoom camera.

 

[BarnacleBob]

 

[solarion]

 

[solarion]

AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder radar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These directional "pencil beam" type radar systems simply cannot work properly on a ball Earth. Think about it...

50km = 31.07 miles. 31*31*8 = 7688" / 12 = 640 FEET of curvature!

Pull the other one! Zero chance that thing can work on a spinning ball 7917 miles in diameter.

 

[BarnacleBob]

We have 3 versions of the ball earth shape lately:

A = NASA's version

B = Islamic version (ostrich eggs)

C = Neil de Gras Tysons version

Which one is the most credible ??

 

[solarion]

Before I start quoting this solarian you/the science are saying if the earth is 7917 miles in diameter every 31 miles there should be 640 feet of curvature? That sounds hilarious!

That's what I'm saying. While 8" per mile^2 may seem overly simplistic...it perfectly captures expected curvature on the surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter at distances up to several thousand miles...with a margin of error that's within a few hundredths of a percent.

This is why I keep saying, if people really understood how much curvature they should observe all around them...in every direction, they too would question the spinning water pear model.

Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator

Use this calculator to calculate and visualize what we can see of a target of a certain size and distance from any observer altitude, taking refraction into account. You can compare the results between flat earth and globe earth. Many more values are calculated and you can customize and store...

walter.bislins.ch

This is a badass Earth curvature calculator. You can even model flat vs ball Earth side by side. This calculator even includes adjustable refraction indexes to silence stubborn ball Earth proponents still milking that silly excuse to ignore observational evidence.

 

[Bigjon]

That's what I'm saying. While 8" per mile^2 may seem overly simplistic...it perfectly captures expected curvature on the surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter at distances up to several thousand miles...with a margin of error that's within a few hundredths of a percent.

This is why I keep saying, if people really understood how much curvature they should observe all around them...in every direction, they too would question the spinning water pear model.

View attachment 236973

Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator

Use this calculator to calculate and visualize what we can see of a target of a certain size and distance from any observer altitude, taking refraction into account. You can compare the results between flat earth and globe earth. Many more values are calculated and you can customize and store...

walter.bislins.ch

This is a badass Earth curvature calculator. You can even model flat vs ball Earth side by side. This calculator even includes adjustable refraction indexes to silence stubborn ball Earth proponents still milking that silly excuse to ignore observational evidence.

You guys are all making one big assumption. That light travels in a straight line.

But we know it bends as the density of the medium's it passes through changes.

 

[BarnacleBob]

 

[solarion]

You guys are all making one big assumption. That light travels in a straight line.

But we know it bends as the density of the medium's it passes through changes.

Not at all. Actually if you read through the thread, you'll find that "refraction" is the most oft cited "reason" to ignore observational evidence in favor of uhhh...theory. The index of refraction through various mediums is very well understood, and most Earth curvature calculators allow for this phenomenon. The better calculators even allow for the adjustment of the index of refraction.

Furthermore, I think it's worth noting, that ball Earth proponents tend to accept(without evidence) that refraction must work always in their favor...yet the truth is very different. The observable fact that light travels faster through hot air due to lower density, than through more dense colder air does not automatically mean that light will "bend" around the exterior surface of a spheroid. This curvature of light due to air density changes could, in fact, mean light bends away from the alleged sphericity of Earth.

If you look at the last model...just 4 posts above...the refractive properties of air are, in fact, included in the calculations.

It's important to note also, that where temperature changes are noted in experiment, the index of refraction, once included, almost never changes the findings in a significant way...and that those changes seldom favor the ball Earth model. The bending of light quite often curves opposite the expected surface of Earth according to mainstream ball Earth theory. This can be seen conclusively in the FeCore laser test results posted in this very thread.

 

[#48Fan]

So, we can look at the sun and other planets/moons and see that they are spherical. Yet, Earth is flat?

 

[solarion]

Perhaps. Would you assume that just because you racked a bunch of spheres to hit with a leather tipped broomstick...called a "cue", that you'll be playing billiards on a spheroid?

The cosmos is allegedly filled with stars just like our sun(sol) and moons, allegedly just like ours. Yet can you name a single PLANE-t anywhere like...Earth? Is there another PLANE-t that supports life and has 7.9b intelligent beings on it? ...the amazing variety of plants? Animals? Greater than 300 million trillion gallons of liquid water? Earth is absolutely unique as far as anyone knows...and science has failed to prove otherwise in hundreds of thousands of years.

All that aside, what one sees when one gazes skyward should not blind one from seeing the reality of the ground upon which one is standing. It's either spherical in a manner consistent with a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference...or it is not. Spoiler alert...it is not. What it is...exactly...that we stand upon when on Earth I do not claim to know for certain, but the maths are pretty clear. 8 inches per mile^2 or it simply is not the exterior of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter.

 

[BarnacleBob]

And here we have it. Gravity debunked by space toast.

 

[solarion]

LOL

...or perhaps they use a graviton fairy magic defying device called a...gyro? Yeah, buttered toast is more likely.

Amusing though that ball Earth proponents insist there is no directional bias in so called "space/time" then proclaim, with a straight face, that there's an imaginary stick through every spheroid in sight at a specific axial "tilt" and then go on to proclaim the position of that imaginary stick relative to the perpendicular PLANE of their alleged flat accretion disc. A rather confused lot.

"A spheroid is the natural grabbitational form in space/time! ...and all the spheres majickally formed from a flat spinning disc of dust and gas! ...because grabbity unicorn farts!"

What in the fuqqs did you just say? lol

 

[lukdiver]

Sailed our sailboat across the South Pacific. Day after day downwind in the Trades till we made landfall in the Marquesas Is. with just noon sun's/ /Radio Shack Time-Cube for WWV time ticks/Casio watch and a sextant. I know the earth isn't flat. It was 21-days from the Galapagos Is. and magical, 1993. Unfortunately as the song ends it truthfully says: "pray that there's intelligent life in this universe because there isn't bugger-all down here on earth"....

 

[solarion]

I particularly enjoy the fact that in the song they measure everything in something called a "light year"(6t miles), which can, of course, be accurately determined because we humans know PRECISELY the speed at which light travels. Hell a seemingly retarded patent clerk named Einstein allegedly formed an equivalence principle founded upon this alleged "constant" over a century ago.

Then someone tries to explain that a directed radar beam can't possibly work on the surface of a ball Earth because of expected curvature and someone shows up to explain that one cannot even know expected curvature over 31 freaking miles because light speed IS NOT CONSTANT.

Ball Earth proponents always want it both ways. They want their constants, their precious(provably wrong) theories, AND they want to invalidate their own theories the very second the basis for those theories become inconvenient.

Is gravitational "lensing" a thing...or isn't it? Does the speed of light vary with the medium traversed? ...or doesn't it? Well...yes say ball Earth theorists.

Again...a seemingly very confused lot that discards accepted laws of physics and observational evidence in favor of theory at every turn, yet insists everyone who doesn't, does so because they don't...science. lol

...and PLEASE, I beg of you, do not give me that "space/time is a vacuum crap." ...unless and until you're ready to explain away the greatest screw up in the history of scientific experiment. The 120 orders of magnitude issue...where allegedly "empty" space time is teaming with "stuff" according to scientific observation.

How fast should this galaxy be rotating? ...according to ball Earther's dual theories of grabbitation that they like to pretend are one?

...and that would be wrong. ...and I mean not even close. Better sprinkle some more "dark stuff" on it so you can keep your grabbiton fairy magic theories going for another few centuries.

 

[BarnacleBob]

Sailed our sailboat across the South Pacific. Day after day downwind in the Trades till we made landfall in the Marquesas Is. with just noon sun's/ /Radio Shack Time-Cube for WWV time ticks/Casio watch and a sextant. I know the earth isn't flat. It was 21-days from the Galapagos Is. and magical, 1993. Unfortunately as the song ends it truthfully says: "pray that there's intelligent life in this universe because there isn't bugger-all down here on earth"....

Sounds like a fantastic journey...

Let me point out that we are not saying the earth is flat, what we are questioning is the size & shape, along with all of the other psuedo science therories that are being bantered about & published as facts, when in fact most have never been proven employing the scientific method.

 

[Voodoo]

I understand it just fine. You, for some reason, incorrectly believe that I'm under some obligation to respond to your questions while completely ignoring mine. To say nothing of the fact that when I do respond to your questions you have a tendency to insult me by accusing me of not responding in a back handed way. Then when you finally see the response, you simply drop the entire conversation without a word.

You've no interest in meaningful discourse, you've interest only in defending your indoctrination. You think that because you can regurgitate a bunch of "facts" that got you an "A" on a test in skool that somehow you "know" a bunch of stuff. Yet, you seemingly also think that surface tension makes ocean water "bendy". You do not even understand your own model, yet you defend it vigorously.

Do the surfaces of Earth's oceans display concavity consistent with the ball Earth model...due to meniscus effect?

No and they shouldn't. The meniscus effect is due to surface tension with the sides of the vessel and only works over short distances, not several thousand miles.

 

[solarion]

Then the only thing left to provide convexity to the surface of the world's lakes and oceans is graviton unicorn magic...or whatever allegedly causes the unidirectional "force" that's also not a force we humans are taught to call gravity, yet hasn't evolved beyond a provably wrong theory in 500 years. So by extension, proving the surface of the Earth's lakes and oceans(72% of the surface) do not display convexity consistent with the exterior surface of a spheroid 24,901 miles in circumference should disprove...once and for all that Earth is not a ball 7917 miles in diameter...that gravity is not as we're led to theorize...or both.

So now, if someone would be so kind as to fire a laser over some lakes and determine if the beam is parallel to the water's surface over tens of miles...that would be great. ...oh wait, some has already? Seven times? Weird.

 

[GoldenPoet]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHlMIQi85hLv/

I dare you closed-minded round earthers to watch this whole vid.

Your mental provincialism is getting very boring.

 

[Bigjon]

Not at all. Actually if you read through the thread, you'll find that "refraction" is the most oft cited "reason" to ignore observational evidence in favor of uhhh...theory. The index of refraction through various mediums is very well understood, and most Earth curvature calculators allow for this phenomenon. The better calculators even allow for the adjustment of the index of refraction.

Furthermore, I think it's worth noting, that ball Earth proponents tend to accept(without evidence) that refraction must work always in their favor...yet the truth is very different. The observable fact that light travels faster through hot air due to lower density, than through more dense colder air does not automatically mean that light will "bend" around the exterior surface of a spheroid. This curvature of light due to air density changes could, in fact, mean light bends away from the alleged sphericity of Earth.

If you look at the last model...just 4 posts above...the refractive properties of air are, in fact, included in the calculations.

It's important to note also, that where temperature changes are noted in experiment, the index of refraction, once included, almost never changes the findings in a significant way...and that those changes seldom favor the ball Earth model. The bending of light quite often curves opposite the expected surface of Earth according to mainstream ball Earth theory. This can be seen conclusively in the FeCore laser test results posted in this very thread.

I would say; you are reaching for a very far out conclusion.

The normal density gradient increases from the vacuum of space to sea level. Plus over water vapor pressure has to contribute to that density gradient.

Then there is gravity, they say it is very weak, but from what I gather that is based on distant star observations.

But if you want to believe the world is flat, be my guest... no skin off of my teeth.

 

[solarion]

14.7 psi at sea "level" ...it's not exactly a mystery.

Despite the fact that humans do not know what light or gravity actually are, they do tend to have a pretty good idea how light functions on Earth. Again, the index of refraction isn't much of a mystery...as much as ball Earth proponents want it to be...while strangely also claiming that the speed of light is constant.

It's not about "wanting" or "believing", it's about observation. Either the ground and water surfaces are curved or they are not...and if they are, then how much are they curved? Does that curvature conform to the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter...or not?

I'll leave the "believing" in provably false theories like gravity to the ball Earth theorists. Science doesn't co-exist well with belief structures.

 

[Bigjon]

14.7 psi at sea "level" ...it's not exactly a mystery.

Despite the fact that humans do not know what light or gravity actually are, they do tend to have a pretty good idea how light functions on Earth. Again, the index of refraction isn't much of a mystery...as much as ball Earth proponents want it to be...while strangely also claiming that the speed of light is constant.

It's not about "wanting" or "believing", it's about observation. Either the ground and water surfaces are curved or they are not...and if they are, then how much are they curved? Does that curvature conform to the exterior surface of a spheroid 7917 miles in diameter...or not?

I'll leave the "believing" in provably false theories like gravity to the ball Earth theorists. Science doesn't co-exist well with belief structures.

That is one point among many.
The word gradient means something.
Why don't you look it up?

 

[solarion]

So you think air pressure variations over a few feet in altitude are causing what? Some gigantic change in the speed of light?

...and you want *ME* to look something up? lol

The change in temperature as one gains altitude has a far greater impact on the speed of light than does air pressure gradient...particularly as air pressure declines with altitude...which means less density and temperature dropping means more density. These variations are minuscule at best...and serve mostly to give ball Earth proponents an excuse to ignore observational evidence in favor of wild theory tales.

Your posts on the topic seem to add up to "refraction is really complicated and stuff, so we can't possibly trust observational evidence."

 

[newmisty]

Like I said before, so simple you can literally prove these things with a stick.

"Simplicity is the highest form of sophistication"

Throwback Thursday: Measure The Earth’s Axial Tilt This Solstice

How, with a sunny solstice, you can figure out how much our planet is tilted!

medium.com

Throwback Thursday: Measure The Earth’s Axial Tilt This Solstice

Ethan Siegel

Jun 18, 2015 · 6 min read


How, with a sunny solstice, you can figure out how much our planet is tilted!

“Soon the earth will tilt on its axis and begin to dance to the reggae beat to the accompaniment of earthquake. And who can resist the dance of the earthquake, mon?” –Peter Tosh

Every year, there are two special days where every place on Earth receives the same amount of sunlight — 12 hours — split evenly between night and day: the equinoxes! If the Sun were a perfect point, instead of a disk taking up about half-a-degree on the sky, this split would be exact, and perfectly identical everywhere on our world. As it is, it’s still pretty close.

Image credit: http://timeanddate.com/.
Like all known objects that revolve around another due to gravity, the Earth rotates along its journey around the Sun. But on those two days of the equinox (from the Latin, meaning “equal nights”), the Earth’s axis-of-rotation makes a 90° angle to the imaginary line connecting the Earth to the Sun.
As a result, every place on Earth spends exactly half the day basking in the sunlight and half the day out of view of the Sun, enjoying the night.

Image credit: F.K. Lutgens and E.J. Tarbuck, ©1998 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
As the Sun rises during the equinox and ascends through the sky, rising towards its zenith, something unremarkable but very interesting happens right as it reaches its highest point above the horizon. You don’t normally think about it, but that highest point — astronomical noon — marks something very significant.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Tauʻolunga.
At that very moment, the angle the Sun makes with your location on Earth exactly determines what your latitude is!
Let’s go over why this is. On the equinox, the Sun will pass directly overhead to an observer on the equator. But to someone at any other latitude, because the Earth is curved, the Sun will never quite reach that maximally perfect overhead perspective.

Image credit: © 2012 Millersville University.
If you’re exactly at the equator — like point A, above — then at its highest point in the sky, perfectly vertical objects will cast no shadow. But at any other latitude, no matter how close you make your measurement to the Sun’s maximum ascent in the sky, you will always see a shadow. (And right at the poles, in fact, you’ll see an infinite shadow, which is what you get when you’re perfectly perpendicular to the Sun’s rays.)
When an object casts its shortest shadow during an equinox, however, that’s when things get really interesting. Because that’s when you can learn what your latitude is.

Image credit: Bora Shin.
You can figure out what your latitude is for yourself by taking a stick that’s exactly perpendicular to level ground, measuring its length, measuring the minimum length of its shadow, and just doing a little bit of geometry from there.

Image credit: Astronomy GCSE, Waukesha South, and me.
The angle you measure when the Sun reaches its highest point on the day of the equinox — in degrees — defines for you what your latitude is at any location on Earth.

Image credit: Larry Phillips original, modified by me.
And the same technique, applied during the equinox on any round world, would give you your latitude at that location. That, of course, is during the two equinoxes. But this Sunday, the solstice arrives!

Image credit: Larry McNish / RASC Calgary Centre.
The two solstices are maximally different from the two equinoxes. On the equinox, the angle the Sun makes with the Earth is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis of rotation, but on the solstices, that angle is at its maximum difference from 90°.
“How different is it,” you ask?

Image credit: David Epstein at Boston.com.
It’s different by the amount that your planet is tilted by. In other words, that difference tells you, exactly, what the tilt of the Earth is!

Image credit: retrieved from abovetopsecret.com; origin unknown.
So if you already know your latitude — which at this point, if you didn’t determine it on the last equinox, you can look up — you can figure out the tilt of the Earth on its axis. If you want to do it during this year’s June 21st (or, in the winter, on the December 21st) solstice, here’s what you do.

Image credit: Larry Sessions and the Community College of Aurora.
Start with level ground, and make sure it’s as close to level as humanly possible. Take a straight object that’s as close to perpendicular to that level ground as you can make it; even someone who’s not great at it but who’s careful can usually get it within just a degree or two. Make sure you measure its length accurately, from the ground to its very top. And as the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky — not at “high noon,” mind you, but at its astronomical zenith — measure the length of the shadow that it casts.
(You want to find the zenith angle, below right, and not the sun angle, below left.)

Image credit: Julian Trubin, left, and unknown Greek source, right.
Those two measurements will allow you, because you have a right triangle, to figure out what the angle is between the vertical stick and the angle of the Sun. Mathematically, take the inverse tangent of the length of the shadow divided by the length of the stick, and you’ll get an angle in degrees.
Now, take your latitude, which you can look up on google if you like, and do the following for a June (December) solstice:

• If you live North of the Tropic of Cancer (South of the Tropic of Capricorn), subtract your measurement from your latitude; that’s the tilt of the Earth!
• If you live South of the Equator (North of the Equator), subtract your latitude from your measurement; that’s the tilt of the Earth!
• Or, if you live between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer (between the Equator and the Tropic of Capricorn), add your latitude and your measurement together; that’s the tilt of the Earth.

Image credit: Kurdistan Planetarium.
And that’s how you, yourself, can measure what the tilt of the Earth on its axis is! If someone tells you “the poles have shifted,” as some conspiracy theory sites may tell you periodically, this is a simple, straightforward and easy experiment you can perform to test it for yourself!
That’s one of the coolest things you can measure on the Solstice, and you don’t even need any astronomical equipment to do it. You could even do this, by following these same steps, on any planet. So long as you knew what your latitude was, you could measure the tilt of any world.

Image credit: Calvin Hamilton.
So enjoy the solstice this Sunday, and to those of you who try it, I’d love to know how close you come to the “accepted” modern value of 23.44°. If our axial tilt ever does change, you can be the first to truly know!

 

[solarion]

What about refraction? lol I guess that pesky thing is suddenly inconvenient for ball Earth theory?

An Earthling actually, ya know...looking at the sun and attempting to explain what is seen does not witness a mess of parallel rays allegedly coming at Earth from a giant ball 864k miles in diameter and 93m miles away.

Always in ball Earth theory observation must yield to so called "science". Imagine how you'd describe the design of the sol-ar system if you weren't already told what to "know" about it to get a passing grade on a state sponsored test. You certainly wouldn't conclude the sun is 93m miles away and zooming by at 67,000 mph.

Trust not your own senses...the sun is actually not where your brain tells you it is...rather TRUST THE SCIENCE™. Oh and make sure you're "vaccinated", the unvaccinated are prone to spooky "conspiracy theories".

 

[solarion]

...and you can buy it on Amazon right this second.

Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein: [Reprint der Originalausgabe von 1931] : Israel (Hrsg.), Hans: Amazon.de: Bücher

Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein: [Reprint der Originalausgabe von 1931] | Israel (Hrsg.), Hans | ISBN: 9783226005370 | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon.

www.amazon.de

Science was long ago hijacked by charlatans. What you think you "know" about relativity, gravity, space/time travel, etc...is just maths based horseshit without a trace of empirical data to support it.

Real scientist with hundreds of crucial inventions on the left...and patent clerk on the right who invented nothing save a provably wrong "equivalence principle" based on mathematical gibberish and muddy definitions.