Spill The Truth (Ryan Zehm) - flat Earth advocate FAIL

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for your last email.  Sorry it took this long to respond back.

A trek across Antarctica to the South Pole is beyond my physical capabilities.  I'm a senior citizen and would crap out on the first or second day.  So I'll have to decline.  But thanks.

But how does that trip prove the flat Earth for you?
a) at the south pole look in ANY direction, and you are ALWAYS looking north?
b) Antarctica is indeed a single continent, and does not surround the Earth as depicted in the Gleason map?
c) There is no military there to stop you, or to prevent you from exploring the continent?
d) The stars in the Antarctica sky are completely different from those you see currently at 42-degrees north latitude?
e) 24-hour sun?  travel between mid October to end of February to view the Midnight sun from Antarctica.
e) other?

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is at an elevation of 9,306 feet above sea level.  For us humans that is definitely high up and you will feel the pressure difference when trying to breathe.  

Let the folks at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station know when you expect to arrive there.  They will provide a nice comfortable room for you for your short stay.  That will also be an independent confirmation that you really did get there.  To be believed, you need independent verification.  

Latitude: 89°59′51″ S
Longitude: 139°16′22″ E

- - - 

Now, with regard to item 2 that we are addressing...

2.  Balloon verification of curvature and atmospheric pressure gradient

Where you answered "Jonah, my finances are dedicated to the Antarctica Expedition."  Well, I agree that a trip to Antarctica is much more expensive than doing the flat earth balloon experiment (< $1,500) and you need to save your money, but I still think your answer is a cop out.  Not acceptable for someone who TRULY wants to know the shape of the Earth.  You can launch your balloon in less than two months and not need to travel anywhere.

New challenge to you - no excuses not to do it now TODAY - no travel necessary - minor expenditure of less than $150. 
If you refuse to do the following I will declare you to be  fake flat Earther - unwilling to find the truth for himself.

All you need is a cheap drone (from Walmart will do) and a clear horizon to watch the sun set.

Verify Earth curvature from any location on the globe, as easy as 1 - 2 - 3
https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/1043-flat-earth-not-verify-earth-curvature-from-any-location-on-the-globe-as-easy-as-1-2-3

So isn't it worth $150 and an hour of your time, to put this flat Earth question to bed?  Why spend the remainder of your life consumed by that conspiracy?

Watch the sun set.  Then fly your drone to 500 feet and the sun will once again be visible.  Watch the sun set from 500 feet, they fly to 1,000 feet and the sun will once again be visible.  Seeing the sun set multiple times, from the same location, just different elevations, is only possible on a GLOBE EARTH.

- - - - 

3.  Your "Horizontal Refraction

I will address this in my next email.  

You said you came up with the math yourself (yes or no) for "Math_TerrestrialRefraction.pdf, but it is line for line identical to what is the current most common solution.

... is line by line identical to the following...
Std atmospheric refraction - https://www.math24.net/barometric-formula#:~:text=where%20the%20height%20h%20above,0.00012h)%5BmmHg%5D.

- - -

kind regards, Jonah

You list the radius of the earth R = 6.3709 x 10^8  = 637090000 cm = 6,370.0 km.  That looks good.
You list the height for your incoming light beam H = 7.990 x 10^5 = 799000 cm = 7.99 km = 26,214 feet. 
Did I read both of those correctly?Questions:
1.  Why did you choose H = 26,214 feet, when the accepted value for the top of the earth's atmosphere is the Karman line at 330,000 feet?2.  You list the following values for your calcs, which do not jive with the current accepted numbers as listed in the table below, which I accept as the current best calcs (and you have listed that article in your .pdf library).
Why the discrepancy?  

Is Rayleigh scattering refraction?

Index of Refraction (n): When light is transmitted through a material, each photon travels at the speed of light, c. However, Rayleigh scattering causes the transmitted wave to be out of phase with the free-space (initial) wave. ... Therefore, there is an index of refraction for homogeneous materials, n = c/v.

I appreciate you answering my 3 questions.

Hope to hear back from you soon.

kind regards, Jonah

**

   

Hi Ryan,

Looks like you did not respond to my last email.  That's OK.  My offer still holds to have coffee/lunch with me if your travels take you close to Cleveland, Ohio.

I wish to address some of your other claims right now.  Please email me back with your clarification or explanation, about how I got it wrong.  

1.  Ryan said:  I strongly lean towards flat earth. But I don't know how to prove it other than crossing Antarctica, I'm planning to go from 170° W to 10° E, coast to coast. I would honestly be surprised if the expedition is possible, I expect to encounter a dome firmament or lands beyond the poles.

JonahTheScientist: Please let us know when your trip starts, so that we can follow along, and you can update us on what you discover.  After reaching the Amundsen south pole station, be sure to check in with them and provide us documentation that you were really there.  OK? 

2.  Ryan said: Only "Horizonal Refraction" theory video is gone as I'm remastering it and programming a computer simulation in C# which allows me to modify variables of the atmosphere such pressure, temperature gradients, and speed of light, to see the changes it makes on light waves traveling to/from earth or horizontal to earth's surface. 

JonahTheScientist: Please send me a link to this working program when you are done.  I would love to explore it.

3. Ryan said :  I don’t know of a “globe earther” per se that has done those calculations"  I don't know any globe earther who can produce the requested formulae either. Why has only a flat earther done this? 

JonahTheScientist: Fact check - your claim is not correct.  In fact, globe earth folks have been the ONLY ONES to have published formulas on terrestrial and astronomical refraction for about 200 years.  The Royal Astronomical Society of London the only folks

Astronomical Refraction–Some History and Theories

https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-1-4-497

Abstract

Astronomical refraction has had a long and fascinating history. Cleomedes (100 A.D.) and Ptolemy (200 A.D.) were aware of its existence and understood in a qualitative way some of its properties. Alhazen (1100 A.D.) quite correctly suggested that the flattening of the sun’s disk near the horizon was due to astronomical refraction. Tycho Brahe in 1587, however, was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction. The first theory of astronomical refraction based on Snell’s law was that of Cassini, who in 1656 looked upon the earth’s atmosphere as being of constant refractive index up to its upper limit at which all the refraction took place. Extensive investigations of the physical properties of the atmosphere modified these ideas and led to the “concentric spherical shell model” and the “plane parallel layer model,” the latter being an approximation for the former. Attempts to evaluate the “refraction integral” for the concentric spherical shell model have led to the theories of Bessel, Bradley, Gylden, Ivory, Laplace, Mayer, Simpson, Young, and others. At the beginning of the twentieth century, investigations on the physical properties of the atmosphere extended to higher elevations, and new physical properties appeared which were not anticipated by the earlier workers. This led to the celebrated work of Harzer, who for the first time was able to compute the astronomical refraction purely from meteorological measurements. Harzer also made the first detailed investigation of the applicability of the spherical shell model, which is used almost universally by workers in this field. Harzer’s work has served as a source of inspiration, but much remains to be done. This paper attempts to give a brief chronological description of some of the more significant theories of astronomical refraction for the purpose of pointing out the types of problems which have existed, how these problems were attacked, and the problems which still remain. It also gives adequate references for those wishing additional information.

© 1962 Optical Society of America

And that has now been taken even further.  Modern day satellite engineer astronomical refraction calculation take into account the movement (in 3D) of the satellite in real time, a relativistic change, the stellar aberration correction, and other criteria. 
- 
Now about your claim = "- Horizontal Refraction, viewer in outer space or high elevation (ISS altitude) who is looking back to earth's surface."

The windows on the ISS are not PRISMS.  

Hope to hear back from you...kind regards,  Jonah

**

   

**

   


Hi Ryan,

You didn't answer my specific questions.  Why?

No.  Maybe you have misunderstood.  I NEVER said our atmosphere is "homogeneous."  I have always supported there being a differential air pressure gradient, 760 mm Hg at sea level, to near zero at the Karman line.

But I also said your math does not agree with current best results.  So there is something wrong with it. 
Why did you choose H = 26,214 feet elevation for your final calculations?   You didn't answer why.

The current best results...
where h₀ is height in meters above the surface:
ASTRONOMICAL REFRACTION : COMPUTATIONAL METHOD FOR ALL ZENITH ANGLES
https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/13945/00-0322.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 

Ryan said :  I don’t know of a “globe earther” per se that has done those calculations"
But I also said that globe earthers have been calculating astronomical refraction for years.  You said none have.  Many famous people have done that.   And they take into account stellar aberration and relativity.  You do not.   

Ryan said : Jonah, my theory has now been verified by people who hold Masters in Physics.
OK.  Please send me the name of some of those people.  OR send me their URL articles.  We need to see exactly what is written.

When are you going to Antarctica?

Since you believe that there may be "more land" to be found at the edge of the earth, why did you use the accepted earth radius distance in your calculations.  That is contradictory.  

PLEASE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS

kind regards,  Jonah

** 

NO ANSWER FROM Ryan Zehm on this one either...


   


Hi Ryan,

Another cheap flat Earth flat earth verification method is attached.  Much less physically challenging and expensive than going to Antarctica. 

Try this one yourself and let us know your results.  OK?

For $139.25 and a few hours of your time, you can determine for YOURSELF if the Earth is flat or curved.
Why not do this simple experiment to put this issue to bed, rather than spending the rest of your life in denial?

Bob Measures the Curve, by Bob the Science Guy
In 2500 feet, the earth curves approximately 1.5 to 2 inches. Can this be measures with inexpensive, but purpose designed tools? Join Bob as he measures the curve of the earth in his backyard.

Details on Bosch GOL 24 Professional https://picclick.com/Bosch-GOL24-Auto...   


   
   

kind regards, Jonah