WLC Invites Independent Scientists to Improve, Challenge, and Ultimately Replace Its Proposed Methodology if Necessary
World’s Last Chance (WLC) has already announced its commitment of US $120,000 toward a scientific investigation designed to test a fundamental question:
Does measured terrestrial geometry conform to the curvature predicted by the conventional spherical/ellipsoidal Earth model, or does the evidence better support a planar geometry?
WLC has also announced that it is seeking an independent Scientific Coordinator to design and oversee the experiment.
We are now taking the next step.
WLC is publicly releasing a prototype benchmark protocol describing how we currently believe the initial experiment could be conducted using a proposed approximately 100-kilometre baseline across Lake Michigan.
But there is an important point that must be understood from the beginning:
This is not WLC’s final experimental protocol.
It is a starting point.
The Scientific Coordinator ultimately selected for the project will be expected to improve this proposal wherever necessary.
|
The purpose of publishing it is to allow qualified scientists, surveyors, geodesists, physicists, statisticians, and other professionals to examine what WLC is proposing and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
The Scientific Coordinator ultimately selected for the project will be expected to improve this proposal wherever necessary.
If the Coordinator concludes that the proposed experiment is inadequate, WLC expects the Coordinator to say so.
If the Coordinator concludes that the proposed location, baseline, instrumentation, measurement method, or statistical approach should be changed, WLC expects those changes to be made.
Our objective is not to defend this prototype.
Our objective is to develop the strongest experiment possible.
Why Publish a Benchmark Protocol?
Some may reasonably ask:
Why doesn’t WLC simply hire a scientist and allow that scientist to design the experiment?
The answer is transparency.
WLC has publicly committed a substantial amount of money to this investigation. We therefore believe that the public should be able to see what we are currently proposing before the Scientific Coordinator is selected.
Potential candidates should know what they are being asked to evaluate.
Other scientists should be able to identify problems that we may have overlooked.
And critics of WLC should be able to examine the proposal and tell us where they believe it is scientifically inadequate.
That is precisely the kind of scrutiny we want.
The benchmark protocol therefore serves two purposes.
First, it demonstrates that WLC is serious about conducting a quantitative test rather than merely making another argument about Earth’s shape.
Second, it gives the eventual Scientific Coordinator something concrete to challenge.
The Proposed Lake Michigan Experiment
The present benchmark proposal uses an approximately 100 km baseline across Lake Michigan.
The coordinator will be free to reject Lake Michigan if another location would provide a stronger scientific test. Likewise, the coordinator will be free to change the proposed 100 km baseline if another distance would produce a more scientifically useful experiment.
|
The exact endpoints have not yet been fixed.
Nor has WLC determined that Lake Michigan must ultimately be used.
Those decisions will belong to the Scientific Coordinator.
Lake Michigan is being proposed because a large body of water can provide a relatively unobstructed long-distance line of sight and because the region offers practical access for professional surveying and scientific fieldwork.
However, the coordinator will be free to reject Lake Michigan if another location would provide a stronger scientific test.
Likewise, the coordinator will be free to change the proposed 100 km baseline if another distance would produce a more scientifically useful experiment.
What Are We Trying to Measure?
The purpose is not simply to look across a lake and ask whether a distant object appears to disappear below the horizon.
Such an observation is affected by many factors, including atmospheric refraction, observer height, target height, wave conditions, optical limitations, and other environmental effects.
The proposed experiment therefore aims at something much more rigorous:
Measure defined geometric quantities with sufficient precision to compare competing mathematical predictions.
The prototype focuses particularly on:
- reciprocal vertical-angle measurements;
- independent height measurements;
- long-baseline surveying;
- repeated observations;
- environmental monitoring;
- and, where practical, intermediate observations along the baseline.
The First Requirement: Define the Competing Models
A serious scientific test cannot simply compare “what we believe” with “what the globe says.”
The competing hypotheses must be expressed mathematically.
The conventional model should be defined precisely, including the reference ellipsoid and relevant geodetic parameters.
The planar model must also be defined precisely.
This is extremely important.
There is no single mathematical model called simply “flat Earth.” Different proposed planar geometries can make different predictions.
Therefore, before the decisive measurements are taken, the Scientific Coordinator must identify exactly which competing models are being tested.
Each model must then produce numerical predictions.
The Illustrative 100 km Globe Prediction
The Scientific Coordinator must determine the appropriate final calculations using the actual station locations, elevations, reference surface, instrument heights, target heights, local verticals, atmospheric conditions, and other relevant parameters.
|
For purposes of demonstrating the type of calculation required, consider a simplified spherical Earth with a radius of approximately 6,371 kilometres.
For a 100 km baseline, ideal spherical geometry gives approximately:
Curvature relative to an endpoint tangent
Approximately:
785 metres
of surface departure relative to a tangent line at one endpoint.
Midpoint sagitta
For a 100 km chord, approximately:
196 metres
of midpoint departure relative to the straight chord joining the endpoints.
Reciprocal vertical angle
For equal-height endpoints, the ideal geometric depression is approximately:
26.98 arcminutes
at each endpoint.
These figures illustrate the magnitude of the geometric effect that a 100 km baseline could potentially test.
They are not the final experimental predictions.
Why not?
Because the actual measurement must account for the physical and geodetic circumstances of the experiment.
The Scientific Coordinator must determine the appropriate final calculations using the actual station locations, elevations, reference surface, instrument heights, target heights, local verticals, atmospheric conditions, and other relevant parameters.
The Illustrative Planar Prediction
Under a simple ideal planar model, the geometric curvature term would be:
0 metres.
The midpoint sagitta would likewise be:
0 metres.
And the curvature-induced reciprocal vertical-angle effect would be:
0 arcminutes.
Again, these are idealized model predictions.
The actual planar model selected for testing must be mathematically defined by the Scientific Coordinator.
The important point is that the competing models must make different quantitative predictions that can be tested against actual observations.
Why the Numbers Must Be Published Before the Experiment
The final numerical predictions must be established before the decisive measurements are examined. Otherwise, there is a danger that researchers could unconsciously adjust the model after seeing the results.
|
This is one of the most important safeguards in the entire project.
The final numerical predictions must be established before the decisive measurements are examined.
Otherwise, there is a danger that researchers could unconsciously adjust the model after seeing the results.
WLC wants to prevent that.
The final protocol should therefore specify beforehand:
- the mathematical models;
- the predicted values;
- expected uncertainties;
- corrections;
- statistical methods;
- treatment of outliers;
- and criteria for determining whether the observations support or contradict each model.
Once the decisive measurements have begun, the goalposts should not move.
Reciprocal Measurements
The benchmark protocol proposes measurements in both directions:
Station A → Station B
and:
Station B → Station A
This is called a reciprocal measurement.
It is important because atmospheric refraction and other systematic effects can influence long-distance optical measurements.
By measuring in both directions, repeatedly, the experimental team can obtain additional information about these effects.
The final methodology will be determined by the Scientific Coordinator.
Atmospheric Refraction Must Be Taken Seriously
WLC does not want atmospheric refraction treated as an afterthought.
Temperature, pressure, humidity, wind, and especially vertical temperature gradients can influence long-distance optical measurements.
Therefore, the experiment should include appropriate meteorological monitoring.
The final protocol should specify:
- what atmospheric conditions will be measured;
- where they will be measured;
- how frequently they will be recorded;
- how they will be synchronized with the surveying observations;
- and how their effects will be incorporated into the analysis.
If atmospheric conditions make a particular observation unreliable, the predetermined protocol must specify how that observation will be handled.
The rules cannot be created afterward simply because a particular result is inconvenient.
Measurement Error and Uncertainty Analysis
The experiment must demonstrate not merely what was measured but how certain we are that the measured result represents the geometric effect being tested.
|
Another essential part of the protocol will be a comprehensive:
Measurement Error and Uncertainty Analysis
This means identifying all significant sources of possible measurement error or uncertainty and determining how much each could affect the final result.
Potential sources include:
- instrument accuracy;
- instrument centering;
- target positioning;
- instrument height;
- target height;
- distance measurement;
- atmospheric refraction;
- temperature;
- pressure;
- humidity;
- wind;
- geoid variation;
- local vertical deflection;
- water-level variation;
- benchmark uncertainty;
- timing;
- repeatability;
- and other systematic effects identified by the Scientific Coordinator.
This analysis is essential because the experiment must demonstrate not merely what was measured but how certain we are that the measured result represents the geometric effect being tested.
Lake Michigan Creates Additional Scientific Questions
Using Lake Michigan also means that the experiment must account for the physical behavior of the lake itself.
The Scientific Coordinator will need to consider:
- lake-water level;
- water-level variation;
- wind-driven water movement;
- seiche effects;
- shoreline elevation;
- the relevant vertical datum;
- and the relationship between the physical water surface and the chosen geodetic reference.
These factors must be measured or appropriately accounted for rather than ignored.
Independent Measurement Methods
The benchmark protocol proposes that the experiment use more than one method wherever practical.
|
The benchmark protocol proposes that the experiment use more than one method wherever practical.
For example, precision optical observations could be supplemented by an independent height-measurement technique.
The purpose is not to force different techniques to agree.
It is to determine whether an apparent result survives when examined using methods with substantially different sources of error.
If two independent methods produce compatible results, confidence in the result increases.
If they disagree, the disagreement must itself be investigated.
Intermediate Measurements
A particularly valuable enhancement would be the use of intermediate observation points.
Rather than relying only upon:
A → B
the experiment might establish something resembling:
A → C → D → E → B
where practical.
This would allow the investigators to examine the geometry along the baseline rather than relying entirely upon measurements between two endpoints.
Again, this is a proposal for the Scientific Coordinator to evaluate, not a mandatory requirement.
Calibration and Quality Control
Before the decisive measurements begin, the experimental team should document:
- instrument calibration;
- instrument serial numbers;
- target specifications;
- instrument heights;
- target heights;
- station positions;
- calibration certificates;
- environmental sensors;
- and other relevant equipment information.
Critical measurements should be independently checked wherever practical.
The purpose is to prevent an unnoticed instrument error from becoming the basis of a major conclusion.
Repeated Measurements
One measurement is not enough.
The final protocol should establish a sufficient number of repeated observations to distinguish random measurement variation from a systematic effect.
Observations should ideally be repeated under different atmospheric conditions.
The experiment should not selectively retain measurements that support one model and discard those that do not.
Rules governing questionable or failed observations must be established before the decisive data are examined.
Independent Analysis
WLC proposes that the person collecting the measurements should not be the only person analyzing them.
Where practical, a separate analyst or analytical team should process the data.
The project should also consider partial blinding.
For example, data could initially be supplied to the analysis team using neutral station identifiers without communicating WLC’s preferred outcome.
The purpose is to reduce the possibility of unconscious confirmation bias.
Raw Data Will Matter
WLC intends to make the underlying evidence available for independent examination.
|
The final scientific report should not simply provide a conclusion.
WLC intends to make the underlying evidence available for independent examination.
Subject to legitimate legal, privacy, safety, or contractual limitations, this should include:
- raw instrument files;
- field notes;
- photographs;
- calibration records;
- meteorological observations;
- timestamps;
- station information;
- processing procedures;
- calculations;
- uncertainty analysis;
- and final datasets.
Independent researchers should be able to examine the evidence and attempt to reproduce the conclusions.
What Would Constitute Evidence for a Planar Model?
This question must be answered before the experiment begins.
WLC should not declare success simply because one observation differs from a globe prediction.
For the results to provide strong evidence against the tested spherical/ellipsoidal model, the experiment should demonstrate that:
- The planar model was mathematically specified beforehand.
- The spherical/ellipsoidal model was mathematically specified beforehand.
- Both models made numerical predictions.
- The measurements were sufficiently precise to distinguish those predictions.
- Atmospheric effects were properly measured and addressed.
- Relevant geodetic effects were addressed.
- The result was repeated.
- Reciprocal measurements were consistent.
- Independent measurement techniques provided compatible results where available.
- Independent analysis reproduced the result.
- No known systematic error adequately explained the discrepancy.
That is a much higher standard than simply saying:
“We saw no curvature.”
What Would Constitute Evidence for the Globe Model?
The same standard must apply in the opposite direction.
If the measurements agree with the preregistered spherical/ellipsoidal predictions within the established uncertainty limits and the planar model fails to explain the observations, that result must be reported.
WLC has publicly committed to doing exactly that.
The experiment must therefore be capable of producing an outcome that WLC does not want.
Otherwise it is not a genuine test.
The Role of the Scientific Coordinator
The future Scientific Coordinator is not being hired to execute this benchmark document word for word. The Coordinator is being hired to critically evaluate it.
|
The future Scientific Coordinator is not being hired to execute this benchmark document word for word.
The Coordinator is being hired to critically evaluate it.
The Coordinator will be expected to answer questions such as:
- Is Lake Michigan the best location?
- Is 100 km the appropriate baseline?
- Are optical measurements sufficient?
- Should another measurement technique be primary?
- Are the proposed controls adequate?
- Are atmospheric effects sufficiently characterized?
- Are the competing models defined correctly?
- Are the predicted differences large enough to be measurable?
- Is the statistical methodology appropriate?
- What sources of systematic error have WLC overlooked?
- What would a skeptical professional scientist criticize?
- How can the experiment be made stronger?
The Coordinator should feel completely free to recommend substantial changes.
Two Independent Scientific Reviews
After the Coordinator develops the proposed final protocol, WLC intends to submit it to at least two independent qualified professionals for critical review before the experiment begins.
These reviewers should be asked to examine the protocol specifically for:
- methodological weaknesses;
- hidden assumptions;
- inadequate controls;
- inappropriate statistical procedures;
- insufficient measurement precision;
- atmospheric effects;
- geodetic effects;
- model-definition problems;
- and any other factor that could unfairly favor one model.
The Coordinator should then consider those criticisms and revise the protocol where appropriate.
Only after this process should the final protocol be established.
The Sequence of the Project
The process should therefore proceed approximately as follows:
Step 1 — WLC publishes the benchmark
↓
Step 2 — WLC selects an independent Scientific Coordinator
↓
Step 3 — Coordinator critically evaluates the benchmark
↓
Step 4 — Coordinator develops a proposed final protocol
↓
Step 5 — Two independent professionals review the proposed protocol
↓
Step 6 — Coordinator considers and responds to the reviews
↓
Step 7 — Final protocol is established
↓
Step 8 — Predictions and evaluation criteria are preregistered/published
↓
Step 9 — Field measurements are conducted
↓
Step 10 — Independent analysis is performed
↓
Step 11 — Raw data and analysis are published
↓
Step 12 — Final scientific conclusions are reported
This sequence is important because WLC does not want to select a coordinator merely to give its existing proposal a scientific appearance.
The Coordinator must have a genuine opportunity to improve it.
This Benchmark Can Be Rejected
There is an important principle behind publishing this document. WLC is prepared for the Scientific Coordinator to reject parts of it.
|
There is an important principle behind publishing this document.
WLC is prepared for the Scientific Coordinator to reject parts of it.
If a qualified professional concludes that:
- the baseline is too short;
- the baseline is unnecessarily long;
- Lake Michigan is unsuitable;
- the optical method is inadequate;
- the proposed planar model is insufficiently defined;
- the treatment of atmospheric refraction is inadequate;
- or another method would provide a stronger test,
then WLC wants that criticism.
The $120,000 commitment is intended to fund a scientific investigation, not to protect a particular experimental design.
Why We Are Making This Public
WLC could simply announce the experiment and privately develop its methodology.
We believe that would be inferior.
By publishing the benchmark in advance, we are inviting the scientific community to examine the project before the decisive measurements occur.
If our proposal contains an error, tell us.
If our methodology is inadequate, tell us.
If our interpretation is wrong, tell us.
If there is a better experiment, tell us.
That is exactly what the Scientific Coordinator will be asked to do.
WLC’s Commitment Remains Unchanged
The publication of this benchmark does not change WLC’s previous commitment.
WLC will not predetermine the outcome.
WLC will not instruct the Scientific Coordinator to obtain a particular result.
WLC will not knowingly alter the evaluation criteria after seeing the decisive measurements.
And WLC will publicly acknowledge the scientifically valid outcome, whether that outcome supports or contradicts WLC’s present understanding of Earth’s geometry.
We Invite Scientific Criticism
We particularly invite qualified professionals who believe the conventional globe model is correct to examine this proposal.
|
We particularly invite qualified professionals who believe the conventional globe model is correct to examine this proposal.
If you believe the globe model is correct, we want you to help ensure that the experiment is designed strongly enough that a legitimate result in favor of the globe cannot be dismissed.
If you believe WLC’s present position is correct, we likewise want you to help ensure that the experiment is rigorous enough to withstand serious scientific criticism.
The standard must be the same for everyone.
No special pleading.
No moving goalposts.
No predetermined conclusion.
No selective data.
Only the measurements.
The Benchmark Is the Beginning, Not the End
This document is therefore not the final protocol.
It is the starting line.
The final scientific protocol will belong to the appointed Scientific Coordinator, subject to independent review.
WLC’s responsibility is to provide the funding, establish the commitment to accept the outcome, facilitate the investigation, and make the results publicly available.
The scientific responsibility belongs to qualified professionals.
And the final conclusion must belong to the evidence.
The Challenge
WLC has put forward the funding.
We have published our present proposal.
We have publicly committed to accept the outcome.
Now we are asking the scientific community:
Can you design a better test?
If our proposed methodology is inadequate, tell us how to improve it.
If our assumptions are wrong, identify them.
If our experiment cannot distinguish the models, show us why.
And if you believe the conventional globe model will withstand the test, help us design an experiment rigorous enough to demonstrate that fact beyond reasonable methodological dispute.
That is the standard WLC wants.
Let the Measurements Decide
WLC is not asking the public to accept our conclusion simply because we believe it. We are proposing to put our understanding to a measurable test.
|
WLC is not asking the public to accept our conclusion simply because we believe it.
We are proposing to put our understanding to a measurable test.
The predictions will be established before the decisive observations.
The methodology will be subjected to independent review.
The data will be preserved.
The results will be analyzed.
And the outcome will be published.
If the evidence confirms WLC’s present position, we will report it.
If the evidence contradicts WLC’s present position, we will report that too.
Because the purpose of this project is not to make the measurements agree with WLC.
The purpose is to discover what the measurements actually show.
“Test Our Test” — The Earth Geometry Project
[Verse 1]
We’ve published our plan for the world to review,
With methods to question and measurements true.
We’re not saying this plan must remain as it stands,
We’re inviting the experts to lend us their hands.
Let every assumption be tested with care,
Let stronger ideas replace what is there.
[Verse 2]
Come scientists, surveyors, come challenge the frame,
Come question our methods and scrutinize each claim.
If Lake Michigan’s wrong, find a better place,
If hundred-kilometers needs changing, replace.
If instruments fail us, then tell us what’s best,
We welcome your wisdom to strengthen the test.
[Chorus]
Test our test, let the strongest plan prevail,
Let the truth stand firm when our assumptions fail.
Before the first measurement, let every claim be known,
Then let the evidence speak from the data alone.
No moving the goalposts, no changing the score,
We’ll follow the evidence, whatever it shows.
[Verse 3]
The globe makes predictions, the plane makes them too,
So write down the numbers before we pursue.
Let models be measured with methods precise,
And account for refraction and errors that might.
Let pressure and temperature, wind all be known,
And every uncertainty openly shown.
[Verse 4]
From station to station, reciprocal sight,
We’ll measure by day and repeat through the night.
With instruments tested and targets secure,
We’ll seek independent methods to make the result sure.
If different approaches produce the same sign,
The strength of the evidence steadily shines.
[Chorus]
Test our test, let the strongest plan prevail,
Let the truth stand firm when our assumptions fail.
Before the first measurement, let every claim be known,
Then let the evidence speak from the data alone.
No moving the goalposts, no changing the score,
We’ll follow the evidence, whatever it shows.
[Verse 5]
Two independent voices will challenge the plan,
And question the methods as honestly as they can.
The Coordinator must answer each doubt,
And strengthen the protocol before going out.
The final design will be openly shown,
With predictions and methods established and known.
[Verse 6]
The raw data preserved, every record retained,
No inconvenient measurement hidden or changed.
Let critics examine each number and chart,
Let independent analysts take it apart.
If something is wrong, let the weakness be found,
For truth does not fear when the facts come around.
[Bridge]
We make this commitment before we begin:
If evidence defeats us, we will not pretend.
If globe predictions stand, we will say they are true;
If planar predictions stand, we’ll report that one too.
Our purpose is testing, not proving a side;
Let evidence alone be the final guide.
[Verse 7]
The benchmark is public, the challenge is clear,
We welcome the critics, the bold and sincere.
Improve what is needed, replace what is weak,
And build us a protocol rigorous and sleek.
For no honest scientist fears a fair test,
And no honest question deserves anything less.
[Final Chorus]
Test our test, let the strongest plan prevail,
Let the truth stand firm when our assumptions fail.
Before the first measurement, let every claim be known,
Then let the evidence speak from the data alone.
No moving the goalposts, no changing the score,
We’ll follow the evidence, whatever it shows.
[Outro]
So here is the challenge, for all who will hear:
Come strengthen the method, come question, come near.
The benchmark is only the place we begin,
The final protocol must withstand scrutiny within.
We seek not a verdict that favors our view—
We seek what the evidence proves to be true.
Comments