Need to find what angular size the sun would be throughout a day if at 4000 miles away. Then calculate the size and size of the moon.
Perhaps lunar waves are wakes from aircraft. Could test!
With an observer in Australia, we could potentially find a time where we could both see the moon, then take a picture, measure the angles, and calculate both flat and globe how it makes sense.
I've reviewed tons of lake laser tests, boat sighting tests, bridges going away from the camera, etc. The issue with all of these is you can cherrypick them to make your point either way: globe or flat. They're too dependent on variables like index of refraction and mirage effect. Therefore, I've chosen to completely ignore all of them. But I'll put some here just because.
Need to test a fair amount above the lake to remove refraction from water vapor Proof: https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0 https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/
Also 8 inches per mile squared doesn't consider observer height. The ground will actually rise up first because you're moving the tangent line upward and tilting downward. This is why using a calculator or equations that factor height in is required.
https://the-uncredibles.tumblr.com/post/130511368809/200-pensb-13-biot-and-arago-experiment
8 inches per mile squared doesn't account for observer or target height. This alleged experiment doesn't seem to have proper documentation beyond a short summary, but it's relatively easy to see certain things 100 miles away when elevated over 2000 feet, which is one of the elevations involved.
The other unspecified elevation would have to be about 1600 feet for it to work.
The length of some of the sides of the great triangles (in the English survey) is upwards of 100 miles; and many means were employed to render the stations visible from each other at such great distances. The oxy-hydrogen, or Drummond’s Light, was employed in some instances; but a heliostat, for reflecting the sun’s rays in the direction of the distant observer, was more generally and successfully employed. Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock, R.E., who observed the station on Precelly, a mountain in South Wales, from the station on Kippure, a mountain about 10 miles south-west of Dublin–the distance between the stations being 108 miles–says: ‘For five weeks I watched in vain; when, to my joy, the heliostat blazed out in the early beams of the rising sun, and continued visible as a bright star the whole day.’
Kippure is a single mountain (2,484 feet),
Preseli range: highest peak in the range has a height of 1,759 feet and there are two other peaks with heights above 1,500 feet.
Minimum target height would be 1437 feet.
Solar radiation plus oxygen molecules create ozone. Inside oxygen isn't exposed to enough.
Lightning DC can create ozone, called Corona discharge. Spark gap will do it. UV ozone generator is the other way. So we can practically demonstrate UV generation.
I've seen people use pictures of lakes to claim the earth is flat. Your standard household mirror has more error than a lake matching the curve of the Earth, but I'll bet you've never measured that or noticed any distortion. Unfortunately it's not possible to find completely flat water anywhere in the world big enough to distort the reflection because of curvature. Do the math and get back to me, I'd love to see it.
Someone needs to create a mirror with the same curvature as the earth and mock up a model. In these pictures the area of water shown is just a couple hundred meters wide in many cases, but in some it's a few miles. Design a mirror that has 0.03% convexity (which is 3 miles of curvature) and reflect a landscape.
"A normal household-mirror made with float glass may have flatness tolerances as low as 9–14λ per inch (25.4 mm), equating to a deviation of 5600 through 8800 nanometers from perfect flatness."
I'm going to run with 5600nm/inch, the low figure
3 miles is 190,080 inches 5600nm/inch of error 1064mm of error across 3 miles So call it an even meter Earth curve is 72 inches in 3 miles, so about double a household mirror
Flat Earthers tend to bring up VHF and higher wave propagation as evidence the Earth is flat because these are line-of-sight. Ignoring for a moment that there's a limit to HF propagation (I can't talk to India at all, for instance), the instances of VHF propagation are rare and due to predictable phenomena like Tropospheric Ducting. You have tested this yourself I can almost guarantee as you've driven away from your favorite FM radio station and heard it fade and fade until it's gone after around 50 miles. AM stations go much further since they are low frequency HF. Using rare cases of VHF propagation as some sort of proof of flat earth is silly. Instead, predict when and explain why these events will occur on a flat plane.
The radio contact distance records for 109mhz or there abouts is likely the result of a rare tropospheric ducting.
https://proaudioeng.com/tropospheric-ducting/
These are records, not everyday contacts. In 99% of atmospheric conditions the 40mhz rule he states is absolutely true, ask any ham (like me)
The higher the frequency the more line of sight needed is the general rule
Interestingly 20m band and 40m band work at opposite times of the day because they are bounced by different layers of the ionosphere. One works only at day time and one only at night if i recall correctly.
The longest contacts are made by EME also called moon bounce, and this can be done even with high microwave frequency
"A new 10-GHz Earth-Moon-Earth (EME or moon bounce) world record has been set. On September 9, Rex Moncur, VK7MO, and Jim Malone, WA3LBI, completed a 18,949.4-kilometer contact using QRA64D. This extends by approximately 600 kilometers the previous world record of 18,337 kilometers held by DL7FJ and ZL1GSG, who used CW."
Here's a decent records page
https://www.ok2kkw.com/dxrecords.htm
EME and Tropo are noted on there, and that's what i talked about above. F2 is an ionosphere layer and in some frequencies that will go further than eme
Distance to the moon can be calculated with parallax:
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@terrylovejoy/practical-astronomy-1551840519
You can bounce your voice off the moon with basic radio stuff. This isn't possible unless the moon is a physical object.
In addition to moon phases and other evidence, the shape of craters on the outer edges of the visible moon are ellipsoid and the ones towards the center are circular. It's logical to assume craters are generally pretty round. Therefore it certainly looks like a sphere.
Moon is one way in northern hemisphere, upside down in southern, and sideways at equator
Same face all the time, meaning it turns (orbit) from the pov of the viewer.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/08/archives/unusual-pattern-found-in-some-lunar-rocks.html
Today's sessions were marked by a number of controversial reports including one by a group from Cambridge Univer sity in England that several bits of brass had been found in sam ples of lunar dust and rocks. Brass, an alloy of copper and zinc, does not normally occur on earth except where made by man.
One skeptic in the audience rioted that brass had been found in another sample of moon dust, but he pointed out that brass hinges on the boxes in which the samples were brought back to earth had been worn. Dr. Peter Gay of Cam bridge was undaunted by this, noting that one brass fragment in the sample studied there was imbedded in a lunar rock.
"air bubbles" seen in space walks are ice crystals.
Video of them ripping apart soyuz is high res and convincing for zero gravity
Face size inside space suit helmets looks half size underwater, and in space they look bigger.
Moon looks bigger close to the horizon because of perspective illusion in your brain. Similar to the train track picture with two white lines of the same size
The initial landing video they celebrated is obviously an animation, which deserves to be mocked. The later videos and photos from the lander and rover look pretty real.