I will add that nothing is stopping you from 'looking into this' yourself.

The thing with this topic is that you have to be able to hold conflicting views. I have admitted in the past that I don't have all the answers, and there are things that I don't have a good explanation for, like the 24 hour sun in Antarctica.

However, to pretend there are zero discrepancies within the heliocentric model is not honest by any stretch. Similarly, if an observation that contradicts the rate of curvature is repeatedly made, then you don't need a hypothesis to replace it with. Falsification is independent of replacement.

The primary reason I maintain this scepticism is because long distance observations are inconsistent with the claim of curvature. Something no one seems to want to address, especially once refraction has been controlled for.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqw7v2ce2fe6sj5azq9hejxkcet433nn4x7uz7f0z9s9a8wgq8k9cqqsyplp8cpthv2wphfqvh2gwtrut2ua24p3y9dsc7ausfec5c8aphrcdrhqe8

Testing the flat Earth idea with broadcast FM radio signals (roughly 100 MHz):

If the transmitting antenna is on a mountain near Los Angeles, for example, at 300 meters high, and the receiving antenna is on a Pacific island on a hill at say, 300 feet, with only ocean in between, there would be no mountains or other obstacles to alter our calculations.

Let us say that the FM broadcast transmitter is running 50,000 Watts (+77 dBm) into a unity-gain antenna, the receive antenna is also unity gain, and the goal is a 20 dB signal-to-noise ratio, good enough for decent high-fidelity reception. This would typically take a signal strength of -73 dBm at the receiver antenna terminals. Therefore, the allowable path loss is 150 dB.

The question then is, how far away could the island be from Los Angeles?

On a flat Earth, you would only be limited by path loss, the horizon could never block anything at surface level or above. So path loss strictly follows the square law rule (loss increases 6 dB every time you double the distance). Running the numbers, the island could be 4,700 miles away and still give you perfect reception.

On a spherical Earth, the radio horizon must be taken into account. For the antenna heights given, the radio horizon is at 60 miles. The signal would still be more than adequately strong at 60 miles, but would attenuate very precipitately beyond that distance. So, on the real Earth, the island could be no more than 60 miles away.

I read that as you agreeing that the experiment was to demonstrate motion, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the results. That's why I considered it still 'open' in this context. Just a miscommunication.

The radio wave topic relates to shape. If you think there are other good experiments to look at for motion, I am of course open to hearing them. I have probably heard most since the strongest proofs tend to be presented the most often.

I'm sure the day will come when someone presents some solid refutations and I can finally move on. There are two fundamental points of discussion - one is for shape, the other is for motion.

I think the argument for a stationary Earth - regardless of shape - has the most compelling evidence, or lack thereof to support motion.

The argument for a 'level topographical plane' may not be as strong, but there are enough problems relating to observational experiments that can reasonably put it into question, too. I am fully aware of how stupid it sounds. I think a select few observations are what primarily draw people into it.