The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: james38 on October 06, 2020, 09:29:52 PM
-
So here we are, none of us know the truth 100% but we accept there are two scientific models that could possibly explain our world: flat-earth theory and round-earth theory.
The wiki's FAQ states:
"when using Descartes' method of Cartesian doubt to skeptically view the world around us, one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof and not Flat Earth Theory".
I find this proposition fascinating because it forcibly makes most debates between the two models follow this formula:
A) round-earther poses a "proof of spherical earth" such as boats disappearing below the water, space flight, astronomy, etc.
B) flat-earther counters that proof with an alternative explanation for the phenomena such as psychological biases, the NASA conspiracy, and any alternative scientific explanations
C) the debate ends in a standoff. Both sides simply accept and are comfortable with their own explanation and fail to make the other side uncomfortable enough with their model to switch views.
I'm a round-earther. But I don't want this post to be a debate on any specific phenomena or scientific theory. Rather, I'd like to challenge flat-earthers with the following philosophical questions:
1) The burden of proof is actually shared. I'm failing to understand how "one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof". I am a tiny speck on an enormous world. The world is so enormous that my senses alone could not detect whether or not the curvature in the world if it existed. If you think you would be able to detect the curvature of the earth from your human senses without being really high up, you misunderstand how large the world is. Therefore, I find that the burden of proof is shared between both sides
2) According to Occam's razor, one should select round-earth theory. Cartesian doubt, mentioned in the wiki, means that you start any line of thinking by acknowledging that you don't know most things and there are only a few ground truths you can rely on. So let's say from the beginning, one does not know the shape of our world. Next, they learn some of the essential phenomena that would occur in both models. For example, in the flat-earth model, there is a wall of ice beyond which is the edge of the world. In the round earth model, Antarctica is a continent on the bottom of the planet. If the burden of proof is shared equally between both sides (as I proved in point 1), the flat-earther simply needs to provide evidence for the wall of ice and the round-earther simply needs to provide evidence for Antarctica.
Here is my evidence for Antarctica: the second image on this webpage: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003402/index.html
Now, I know for a fact that flat-earthers have counter-arguments against this image's validity. But because
the burden of proof is shared, this is still the winning empirical evidence until there is an equal or more convincing image of the wall of ice or whatever lies beyond it. In other words, Occam's razor says you should select the theory with fewer assumptions. For flat-earth theory to be true the assumption is that there is a global conspiracy centered around NASA. For round-earth theory to be true, the assumption is that there is no picture of an ice wall because there is no ice wall. Which is the lesser assumption, the existence of a global conspiracy, or the non-existence of a mysterious ice-wall?
This leads me to my third point:
3) Flat-earth theory, while claiming to be a science, is believed unquestionably and without doubt or scientific rigor. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. And the degree to which a theory is true directly corresponds to how rigorously it has been tested and proven to not be false. The round-earth theory is extremely falsifiable. If space travel is not possible, simply show me a picture or video of the edge of the world from a plane, boat, or antarctic expedition.
If I saw a valid picture of the edge of the world and came to terms with NASA being a conspiracy, I would change my belief. This however makes me even more confident in my round-earth belief, because I know no such image of the ice wall exists. So I ask flat-earthers, if a picture of Antarctica is not enough, what makes your theory falsifiable? What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief? What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?
-
So here we are, none of us know the truth 100% but we accept there are two scientific models that could possibly explain our world: flat-earth theory and round-earth theory.
I actually don't accept that.
There is no coherent flat earth model which has any explanatory power.
A rotating globe earth which is tilted on its access and orbits a distant sun explains night and day, seasons, the "sinking ship" effect simply.
To explain these things on a FE ad hoc mechanisms are needed. Let's take the sun. What is making the sun go in a circle above us? Circular motion requires a force, what generates that? If the seasons are explained by the diameter of the sun's orbit changing then what causes that? Another force is required. And what makes the sun speed up such that the 24 hour day length is maintained as the sun's orbit increases in diameter. What makes it slow down as the orbit decreases? That's a 3rd force. And what makes the orbit's diameter "flip" every 6 months so for 6 months the diameter increases then for 6 months it decreases?
Why doesn't the sun fall on us? What makes the sun work if it's local and small? How could something that small generate that much energy and heat for all of recorded history?
There is no FE model which can make predictions and there's no working map. I don't accept there are 2 models which could explain our observations.
-
@james38
Models are meta-scientific tools. They are not for explanation or understanding.
They are always wrong, but are limitedly useful for a finite time.
RE has profound amounts of assumption, so no - occam the monk does not help you or your case. Anyway, that was intended for scientific theory, which the "globe model" is not.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If a flat earth researcher claims that the earth is flat - the burden of proof would fall on them. If the flat earth researcher claims nothing, the burden of proof is still required of the presumptive model.
All round earth believers declare (implicitly or otherwise) that the earth is spherical with conviction and certainty. It is a dogma of their faith, and they are punished for dissent (the church never changes). As such this claim necessarily requires proof (by the convention) in the first instance - and no more "debate" can happen until that is forthcoming. It always seems easy to RE believers initially, until they try and do it in earnest. Many flat earth researchers start out this way - trying to disprove this "stupid/crazy/misguided little cult" and such things, and after encountering significant difficulty, begin questioning their beliefs masquerading as fact and science.
In any case, debate is not useful to determine what is going on in reality. That's what science is for!
-
@ jack44556677, thank you for your response. I hope we can have an interesting conversation.
I'd like to get on the same page as you. If I'm understanding you correctly, a model is not an explanation. Rather, it is for generating hypotheses to conduct scientific experiments on.
If "The burden of proof is on the claimant" you must agree that we have two claimants, FEers and REers. As you stated, if a researcher claims nothing the burden of proof lies with the presumptive model. Ok. So far I think we are still on the same page. But if we are on the Flat Earth Society's "Flat Earth Theory" forum, I think Flat Earth in this context is the presumptive theory.
As such this claim necessarily requires proof (by the convention) in the first instance - and no more "debate" can happen until that is forthcoming.
As I mentioned before, proof is to test a hypothesis on a falsifiable theory. The globe model is falsifiable. If we fly into space and look at the planet and see that it is flat, we have proven the null hypothesis. However, we flew into space and saw the Earth was a globe. This is disproving the null hypothesis, and thus scientific evidence.
All round earth believers declare (implicitly or otherwise) that the earth is spherical with conviction and certainty. It is a dogma of their faith, and they are punished for dissent (the church never changes).
This is not true in the slightest, at least in this conversation. I have come to this forum hoping for a scientific/philosophical conversation based on evidence, facts, and logic alone. So let's leave out any of talk of society's influence so we can have a pure discussion of the evidence and our lines of logic.
It always seems easy to RE believers initially, until they try and do it in earnest. Many flat earth researchers start out this way - trying to disprove this "stupid/crazy/misguided little cult" and such things, and after encountering significant difficulty, begin questioning their beliefs masquerading as fact and science.
I am not slandering you or anyone in this forum in that way. From what I've been experiencing, FEers are sincere scientists and thinkers with a theory, and I am coming here to have a respectful conversation.
Also, I have so far encountered zero difficulties. I made one point (as an example) about NASA's image of Antarctica. This was my disproof of the null hypothesis. I have requested that a proponent of the opposing theory (FE) to state what would make their theory falsifiable, and show me the evidence that disproves their null hypothesis.
RE has profound amounts of assumption
Every theory has assumptions. What makes a theory more complex is having relatively more assumptions than the other. So based on one piece of evidence we have (NASA image of Antarctica), let us look at the two assumptions:
1) The earth is a globe. This is why we saw Antarctica.
2) The earth is flat. We saw Antarctica because there is a global elitist conspiracy that produced it as a hoax. There is no Antarctica because it is an ice wall. The human race, despite its technological progress, has been unable to get an image or evidence of this ice wall because of "XYZ"...
Which one of these two theories has more assumptions?
So far, at least in this conversation, it is you who has encountered difficulty. You avoided and did not answer my most important original question:
What makes your theory falsifiable? What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief? What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?
In any case, debate is not useful to determine what is going on in reality. That's what science is for!
Debate is a part of science, hence "scientific debates". And science is ultimately governed by the philosophy of science. And I respect you all as scientific thinkers which is why I came here seeking a philosophical/scientific debate, as scholars do.
-
@james38
I hope we can have an interesting conversation.
Interesting and productive/effective I hope!
If I'm understanding you correctly, a model is not an explanation. Rather, it is for generating hypotheses to conduct scientific experiments on.
That is a fair interpretation.
But if we are on the Flat Earth Society's "Flat Earth Theory" forum, I think Flat Earth in this context is the presumptive theory.
That's a thought! Possibly some here may agree with you, however I personally (just an internet rando, not a TFES representative or otherwise able to speak for anyone but myself) have a few issues with the premise.
First, there is no flat earth theory in a scientific context. Theory has a hallowed place in science, and what fledgling science exists for this subject is not there yet.
Second, you may have read this on the wiki (and if you have not done so, I recommend a read through or two!), but there is a critical and often neglected distinction between belief and knowledge. Many, if not most, people will admit/attest that they "believe the world is round" (they rarely say "spherical", "oblate" etc. but we know what they mean.)
They use the verbiage of belief because it is earnest and accurate, as well as colloquial. There are almost no people in the world prepared to claim and defend that they KNOW what the shape of the entire world is. Personally, and I am not alone - though may not be the norm in TFES (I'm new-ish), I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is. I lack the verified and verifiable data to make that determination with certainty - to ACTUALLY know it, as opposed to merely believe as most all else do as a matter of educational requirement/rote. For this reason, I do not claim that the earth is flat - I claim that it (most likely) cannot be spherical. My "kind" is often referred to as globe deniers or globe skeptics.
Thirdly (and finally), much of the products (conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments) of flat earth research are not so much toward the creation of a new replacement theory, as they are against the presumptive model that is mandated in schools since early childhood with no dissent allowed. For example, in my research (historical analysis, in this case); I found that not only had pythagoras' unvalidated assumption, of the earth being spherical, never been validated but during all that time it had been taught disingenuously/erroneously as fact to children (like eratosthenes and columbus) for millennia before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)
However, we flew into space and saw the Earth was a globe.
And if we didn't do that? What if that only took place on TV and not in real life. What then? This may appear to be a wildly speculative hypothetical, but I assure you it is anything but. This is a worthy question to consider and research regardless of your position.
I have come to this forum hoping for a scientific/philosophical conversation based on evidence, facts, and logic alone.
Excellent, me too! Converse! Just don't debate - it's not for smart people.
So let's leave out any of talk of society's influence so we can have a pure discussion of the evidence and our lines of logic.
If you think it will help us discuss, very well. However, it is important that you understand the point here - as it is at the crux of your post. The "default" position (dogma) for anyone "educated" is that the world is spherical. It is the claim most at issue in the discussion, and it is profitless to pretend like it isn't your claim because TECHNICALLY you didn't say specifically that just now. Debate is a stupid game. Rational discourse is much more rewarding and valuable, however it pays to be honest (with yourself and others). It would be dishonest to claim that you earnestly do not believe/claim the world to be spherical, would it not?
From what I've been experiencing, FEers are sincere scientists and thinkers with a theory, and I am coming here to have a respectful conversation.
I'm pleased that has been your experience. I fear it is not the norm for people foraying (or attempting to) into this subject. There are many disearnest, disingenuous, and profiteering in this space.
I have requested that a proponent of the opposing theory (FE) to state what would make their theory falsifiable, and show me the evidence that disproves their null hypothesis.
Interesting approach. What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?
Every theory has assumptions.
Absolutely, all philosophy is built on them. The question is which one has more of them. However this is all non-sequitur because occam's razor is for scientific theories and neither the globe model nor the flat earth model (which does not exist in a scientific context either) are scientific theories. It's also a rule of thumb, not a binding principle towards truth everlasting.
1) The earth is a globe. This is why we saw Antarctica.
This assumes much. Certainly we can't conclude the shape of the entire world by merely looking at a picture of antarctica... right?
2) The earth is flat. We saw Antarctica because there is a global elitist conspiracy that produced it as a hoax. There is no Antarctica because it is an ice wall. The human race, despite its technological progress, has been unable to get an image or evidence of this ice wall because of "XYZ"...
Some are convinced that antarctica is an ice wall (or connected to it) and encircles the world. Personally, I have doubts about things I don't know for certain. The speculation is interesting, and maybe even possible, but depending on it to determine the shape of the world seems unjustified given the little amount of evidence I estimate there is to support it.
Which one of these two theories has more assumptions?
We may have to define some terms. I'm kind of a stickler meeseeks.
Occam's razor is for scientific theories, not theories in the colloquial sense - as you just used it.
What makes your theory falsifiable?
Karl popper's fringes are not part of the scientific method proper, however I do agree with this one in any case. In order for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. Let's say that these words did not have rigorously defined definitions in a scientific context - and there are 2 "theories" going head to head. RET says the earth is round. FET says the earth is flat. Why do/would you feel either is unfalsifiable?
What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief?
This is your question! You thought it was directed at me, but it wasn't! You should answer this one (or give it a shot, anyhow)! I am rubber, and you are glue!
Seriously. You should answer your question above for yourself about yourself. In the meantime, I will answer your question.
First, belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific. If you believe that the earth is flat, round, spherical or any other shape - you have faith, not fact. I KNOW that the assumption the earth is spherical is over 2 millennia old and has never been validated in all of human history (until arguably NASA et al and their MIC affiliates, if you believe everything you see on tv). I KNOW that the surface of motionless water under natural conditions (of sufficient quantity and barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is flat, level, and horizontal; and that that natural law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries - very much including today. Because of these things I know, i have deduced that the world is (most likely) not spherical, and cannot be.
To change what I know in this regard would require altering (refuting / changing / updating) the 2 statements that I know are factual above (due to thorough research), or determining the shape of the world in a sufficiently validated and validatable (with independent oversight etc.) manner. There is only one way to determine the shape of objects in manifest objective reality with certainty, and the earth is no special case.
What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?
The physical measurement (validation/confirmation) of the sustained convex curving of water's surface required by the globe model. It is perpetually calculated, but has never been measured in all of human history. This is odd, especially considering it has been taught to children as fact erroneously/disingenuously for millennia.
Debate is a part of science, hence "scientific debates"
Debate is not a part of science. It isn't part of being president either, but the bloodthirsty meat puppets really like carnage.
Debate is base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges. It has no place in effective communication/learning, or science.
Science, despite what we have been incorrectly taught to the contrary, is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law, established by rigorous and repeated measurement alone) and colloquially to the body of knowledge that that method produces. There is no "get audience and judges together for pageantry" nor "debate" step in the scientific method. We don't argue/debate our way to figuring out how the world works. That's what science is for!
I look forward to more discussion!
-
Thank you for your engaging responses @jack44556677 !
Debate is not a part of science. It isn't part of being president either, but the bloodthirsty meat puppets really like carnage.
Debate is base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges. It has no place in effective communication/learning, or science.
Science, despite what we have been incorrectly taught to the contrary, is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law, established by rigorous and repeated measurement alone) and colloquially to the body of knowledge that that method produces. There is no "get audience and judges together for pageantry" nor "debate" step in the scientific method. We don't argue/debate our way to figuring out how the world works. That's what science is for!
Debate is a stupid game. Rational discourse is much more rewarding and valuable, however, it pays to be honest (with yourself and others). It would be dishonest to claim that you earnestly do not believe/claim the world to be spherical, would it not?
I like the way you think. Let's call this what it is. You are inclined to believe one proposition and I am inclined to believe a contradictory one. And the focus of the conversation is which one is more likely true. That's all I mean by "debate" .. no judges, audience, or egos necessary!
Scientific debates are everywhere in the field. One researcher or lab may have one theory and another may have a contradictory or at least very different one to explain the same phenomena. And both use the scientific method to test and try to prove their theories. And yes, honest scientists are also unbiased and admit it as soon as their theory is wrong! Don't associate the word with political debates. I'm talking about the kind that occurs over decades and mostly in writing. We still call them "scientific debates".
Also, I want to apologize in advance if I ever come off as arrogant or condescending. That is not my intention!
First, there is no flat earth theory in a scientific context. Theory has a hallowed place in science, and what fledgling science exists for this subject is not there yet.
Second, you may have read this on the wiki (and if you have not done so, I recommend a read through or two!), but there is a critical and often neglected distinction between belief and knowledge. Many, if not most, people will admit/attest that they "believe the world is round" (they rarely say "spherical", "oblate" etc. but we know what they mean.)
They use the verbiage of belief because it is earnest and accurate, as well as colloquial. There are almost no people in the world prepared to claim and defend that they KNOW what the shape of the entire world is. Personally, and I am not alone - though may not be the norm in TFES (I'm new-ish), I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is. I lack the verified and verifiable data to make that determination with certainty - to ACTUALLY know it, as opposed to merely believe as most all else do as a matter of educational requirement/rote. For this reason, I do not claim that the earth is flat - I claim that it (most likely) cannot be spherical. My "kind" is often referred to as globe deniers or globe skeptics.
I agree with most of this. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a great starting point for us.
Except for the point about faith. Faith is belief without evidence. NASA's pics count as evidence. More on that later.
The "default" position (dogma) for anyone "educated" is that the world is spherical.
I agree.
We are on a Flat Earth Society forum but in a "Spherical Earth Society" world. Let's call the burden of proof even for now? I mainly meant for "burden of proof" to be a good entryway into a conversation/debate because I've never spoken with a flat earth researcher before and thought it would be a good starting point.
Thirdly (and finally), much of the products (conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments) of flat earth research are not so much toward the creation of a new replacement theory, as they are against the presumptive model that is mandated in schools since early childhood with no dissent allowed. For example, in my research (historical analysis, in this case); I found that not only had plato's unvalidated assumption, of the earth being spherical, never been validated but during all that time it had been taught disingenuously/erroneously as fact to children (like eratosthenes and columbus) for millennia before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)
It's definitely interesting to hear how flat earth researchers are approaching things. I think breaking down your approach will serve well as evidence for one of my central arguments, which is that flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.
Firstly, you've discouraged us from using the word theory:
occam's razor is for scientific theories and neither the globe model nor the flat earth model (which does not exist in a scientific context either) are scientific theories
I can't let this one slide, or it will topple my whole argument.
Shall we go with Wikipedia's definition for "theory"?
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
Aspect of the natural world: We live on a planet which we are able to circumnavigate.
Explanation/theory 1: sphere
Explanation/theory 2: disc
So back to my argument: flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.
Let's talk about the scientific method. I'll start a little list here (though it may be incomplete), let me know what you think.
1. Have a falsifiable theory to explain a phenomenon
2. Think of a hypothesis that relates directly to the falsifiable part of the theory.
3. Run an experiment to test that hypothesis
If the null hypothesis is proven true, that means that theory was proven false. If the null hypothesis is disproven, this does not prove the theory 100% true. It only makes it stronger. No theory can ever be proven 100%, but a particular theory can be disproven. Although sometimes, a disproven theory only needs a slight modification in order to be revived as a possibility.
Now, we have two theories before us, disc and globe. It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory. That's great because it's a falsifiable theory that can be tested to confirm or reduce your skepticism!
Your historical analysis is fascinating from a historical perspective, but it does nothing to disprove the falsifiable aspect of either theory. So your claim that is "against the presumptive model", I'd have to disagree with.
I'm wondering if this might be one of the more subtle deeper differences between our perspectives (maybe you can agree on this). In my camp, none of us care whatsoever what Plato said. We believe that we have concrete evidence today, and that is all that matters. But in your camo, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might believe that modern science is built upon twisted assumptions about the worlds shape that goes back all the way to the Greeks. I don't want to put up a strawman though, just thinking out loud.
Now NASA seeing Antarctica from space? That's the perfect test of a falsifiable theory. I think we agree that if we fly into space and see Antarctica, glove theory was proven. But then you say...
If we didn't [fly into space and see the earth is a globe]? What if that only took place on TV and not in real life. What then? This may appear to be a wildly speculative hypothetical, but I assure you it is anything but. This is a worthy question to consider and research regardless of your position.
I'm definitely following you. A global elitist conspiracy is technically possible. But it is complex and involves many assumptions. For example, we'd have to assume that there has been widespread lying and brainwashing, and somehow no leaks! I'm definitely not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it lacks a simple and thorough explanation.
I'm pleased that has been your experience. I fear it is not the norm for people foraying (or attempting to) into this subject. There are many disearnest, disingenuous, and profiteering in this space.
I think it's really sad the way flat earth believers are treated sometimes. But I think that's no surprise, humans are just like that. We are all desperate for answers and due to cognitive dissonance, it's much less stressful to just blanket reject anything that threatens your core beliefs. Just look at religion...
[in response to me asking what makes Flat Earth Theory falsifiable]
Interesting approach. What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?
I don't consider "NASA lies" to be falsifying of flat earth theory (actually, this is the opposite it is evidence towards flat earth theory). Maybe this line of thought could be very beneficial for our conversation.
But assuming that you meant "NASA lies" as being a way to falsify globe earth theory, I'd have to disagree. If it were proven that NASA lied, that would not disprove globe theory. It doesn't contradict the theory in any way or prove the null hypothesis. NASA can be lying and the Earth can still be a globe nonetheless! The two do not logically contradict.
Anyway, what I really meant to ask you is what meakes flat earth theory falsifiable. Which you did answer!:
The physical measurement (validation/confirmation) of the sustained convex curving of water's surface required by the globe model. It is perpetually calculated, but has never been measured in all of human history. This is odd, especially considering it has been taught to children as fact erroneously/disingenuously for millennia.
Great! So in other words, if the sustained convex of the curving of the water's surface was measured physically (I'm curious what tool does this) and was non-zero, this would disprove the flat-earth model. Are we on the same page here? This is exactly what I mean by falsifiable. And I like how straightforward it is as a hypothesis.
This is your question! You thought it was directed at me, but it wasn't! You should answer this one (or give it a shot, anyhow)! I am rubber, and you are glue!
I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.
But according to you (I don't know anything about convex measurements), this is an unanswered question. I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth thoery since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.
But those measurements don't exist, sadly. Maybe it's useful through as a thought experiment.
I'm going to invent a tool in my head that could conduct this experiment. It's a giant (many miles long), solid, non-flexible floating bar of some sort. I don't think such an item can exist, so bear with me. Its just a thought experiment. But when you lay it on a flat-earth ocean, both ends touch the water, since the water surface is flat. But on a globe, both ends would raise above the water to some extent. Or the middle would sink below, depending on the density of the material. In any case, the ends would be higher than the middle relative to the water's surface.
Now suppose NHWA (National Hydronautics and Water Administration) goes and conducts this test... I think you see where I am going with this. What would stop you from just disbelieving those scientists?
Let's go back to what you said before:
What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?
I think your disbelief in NASA is, in fact, the most foundational and unifying proposition in your camp.
You say:
Certainly we can't conclude the shape of the entire world by merely looking at a picture of antarctica... right?
Yes yes yes, we can! It looks like a globe, and Antarctica looks like a continent at the bottom. The only possible way that this picture exists at the same time as the earth not being a globe is if the picture is a hoax. So logically speaking, this is central to your theory? Am I wrong? You said yourself that you aren't sure the Earth is a disk or what shape it may be. But what your more sure of, if I understand correctly, is that NASA is lying to us.
So why don't we approach the question of NASA lying scientifically? You have a theory, which is that NASA's images of space are fabricated. But tell me how this is falsifiable. Tell me what evidence you could have, what hypothesis you could test, that would prove or disprove whether NASA is lying.
Karl popper's fringes are not part of the scientific method proper, however I do agree with this one in any case. In order for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. Let's say that these words did not have rigorously defined definitions in a scientific context - and there are 2 "theories" going head to head. RET says the earth is round. FET says the earth is flat. Why do/would you feel either is unfalsifiable?
To be honest, my reasoning becomes more clear while I was writing this reply. I think you are correct that FET is not unfalsifiable. It is just as falsifiable as globe earth theory. But when you selectively disbelieve evidence, then that is what makes it unfalsifiable. NASA's images are for sure not the only evidence we have in support of globe earth theory, but it is the most important by far because of the scale of the coordinated conspiracy that would be required in order to create the hoax.
Questioning the validity of a single researcher and lab is within reason but if you are opening to question the validity of a coordinated effort of physicists as large as NASA, how can you believe anything at all?
I KNOW that the assumption the earth is spherical is over 2 millennia old and has never been validated in all of human history (until arguably NASA et al and their MIC affiliates, if you believe everything you see on tv).
You KNOW that NASA lied? Because if you read the "knowledge" you claim to have, it seems you are the one with quite a bit of faith. That's the funny thing about all of this: Getting a shred of evidence that NASA lied would be impossible (definitely challenging you on this). This is where my "unfalsifiable" argument derives from. NASA hands you the greatest evidence of all time that you could ever dream of in answering the age-old question of the shape of our world. And given that evidence, you call them liars and choose to believe the opposite of what your eyes see. It's not unfalsifiable inherently, it's unfalsifiable once you choose to selectively disbelieve certain evidence.
I KNOW that the surface of motionless water under natural conditions (of sufficient quantity and barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is flat, level, and horizontal; and that that natural law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries - very much including today.
Interesting, I'd be really curious to hear more about this. How exactly do the laws of hydrostatics help in forming hypotheses related to the two theories? Have these hypotheses been tested?
To change what I know in this regard would require altering (refuting / changing / updating) the 2 statements that I know are factual above (due to thorough research), or determining the shape of the world in a sufficiently validated and validatable (with independent oversight etc.) manner. There is only one way to determine the shape of objects in manifest objective reality with certainty, and the earth is no special case.
I'm afraid our conversation is inflating a lot, so please don't feel pressure to respond to every single one of my points. I hope all the fluff is useful to help us get acquainted at least :) I'll give you my top 3 questions/arguments, and then maybe you can do the same for me.
1) What is your proof that NASA lied?
2) Can you explain in more depth about the hydrostatics?
3) If NASA was able to pull off the greatest scientific hoax of all time with such great success, how can we ever believe what any scientific organization ever tells us again?
Looking forward to your response!
-
@james38
Part 1 of 2
You are inclined to believe one proposition and I am inclined to believe a contradictory one.
It is true that we are both products of our cultures/raising and both suffering from delusion euphemistically referred to as "bias" (and worse). I must reiterate that I endeavor diligently to eschew belief from all knowledge/fact, most especially scientific. I do not believe the things I say, I seek to know instead of merely believe. The claims I make are validated as correct and supported through and by research, and do not rely upon belief. This stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of "educated" which are required as a dogma of their faith to believe the earth is a particular shape (usually "spherical", but increasingly "flat" and other shapes). Whenever someone, including yourself, uses the verbiage of belief - your ears ought perk up. Many, if not most, people are not explicitly aware of the beliefs they have that are masquerading as facts/knowledge/science and this can often be exposed/betrayed to us by their diction.
I would say that we are 2 people with differing views engaged in conversation / rational discourse in the, ideally, mutual and earnest pursuit of truth (and failing that lofty goal, just plain knowledge will suffice).
And the focus of the conversation is which one is more likely true. That's all I mean by "debate" .. no judges, audience, or egos necessary!
Most excellent. I'm game! However, it is important to remember that no amount of discussion (nor assessment of "likelihood") will (or could) ever determine the shape of the world. There is only one way to do that.
Don't associate the word with political debates
I do recognize that there is no debate more farcical and unstructured than political "debate" - perhaps most especially in the US, however all debate is merely a game in my view. It has no purpose beyond pageantry/marketing. It is in no way a part of science or the scientific method, it is a part of marketing it. Debate serves no role in determining what is or is not in manifest physical reality - that is what science is for! I am aware that the egotists in science enjoy the game, and that bohr absolutely destroyed einstein - but this is as meaningless and stupid as any other pageantry - football or any other sport, for instance. It has an impact on science, as does "consensus", but these are clear and obvious corruptions.
We still call them "scientific debates".
True. This distracts from their true purpose - marketing/persuasion/manipulation. Science is not progressed or practiced with debate. Debate is not a step in the scientific method. Rigorous, or perhaps even heated, discussion that leads to meaningful hypothesis that can be experimentally validated on the other hand is not debate. Debate has formal rules, like all games. Scientific discourse, contentious/heated or not, should not be referred to as debate.
The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a great starting point for us.
I'm glad you brought that up! This subject has a lot to do with the greeks.
This is a mistranslation. I was taught it too (as were many others), and it's wrong. Socrates never said that! For a wise philosopher to declare his wisdom and knowledge as worthless/meaningless would be unthinkable.
What he actually said was, "At least I do not claim to know, that which I know I cannot know". He was speaking to the elites of his day, whom he preferred to commit suicide rather than continue to live in the same world with.
I agree, this is a great place to start.
Faith is belief without evidence.
Faith is also any "fact" supported/underpinned by belief (with or without subjective "evidence"). Most all religious people argue for the evidence of the reality of their stories. They ALL have evidence... So did the greeks that believed zeus was responsible for this and that. Personally I am not so averse to faith as I am to blind faith, however belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.
NASA's pics count as evidence. More on that later.
Possibly, but they come from a demonstrably (and repeatedly) untrustworthy source. The sad truth is they are the ONLY evidence (supposedly that remains).
Space doesn't exist except on tv, and I know how wild that sounds.
Pictures are also a suspect form of evidence, as I have many pictures of the loch ness monster and bigfoot. For this reason, they can never serve as the sole evidence or "proof", as they essentially MUST in the case of "space" writ-large.
Let's call the burden of proof even for now?
If by that you mean that neither RET nor FET (if such a thing there be) has sufficient proof to satisfy the burden of proof as to the claim of the specific, known, and provable shape of the world; then I more or less agree. There exists about as much "proof" that the entire world is spherical as it is flat.
flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.
It is quite the opposite! However, I wish you would stop abusing the word "theory". Can we call them posits? Neither is a theory - even colloquially, "Hey man, the earth is totally round/flat" hardly qualifies.
I can't let this one slide, or it will topple my whole argument.
Here we go... So far I don't see any obvious issue with changing "theory" to "posit", but I can tolerate it if you feel it is important.
Let's talk about the scientific method. I'll start a little list here (though it may be incomplete), let me know what you think.
Looks pretty good! Way above average in my experience. There may be some issues with the verbiage however. The sticky wicket is, once again, "theory".
I have no issue with having a theory in step 1 which you wish to test, though it is a little odd/non-standard. Typically the word to use, where you had inserted "theory", is "hypothesis". Experiments only have one function, and they do not test theories, only hypotheses. The rigid linkage between the theory and the hypothesis may be hard if not impossible to guarantee - but so far, mostly so good.
If the null hypothesis is proven true, that means that theory was proven false.
As a stickler, I am compelled to point out that the experiment, in the strictest sense only validates, invalidates (or neither) the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not solidly connected / comprised in the theory, this deduction may be unsound. But, still so far so good - i think.
If the null hypothesis is disproven, this does not prove the theory 100% true. It only makes it stronger. No theory can ever be proven 100%, but a particular theory can be disproven. Although sometimes, a disproven theory only needs a slight modification in order to be revived as a possibility.
Still good!
It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.
Correct. The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.
That's great because it's a falsifiable theory that can be tested to confirm or reduce your skepticism!
The posit and conclusion (that the earth most likely cannot be spherical) can be falsified, yes. It can also be demonstrated, historically, that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old (or at least was until the 50's/60's, if you believe what you see on tv)
So your claim that is "against the presumptive model", I'd have to disagree with.
The quoted phrase was referencing the "conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments" that support the claim (that the earth, most likely, is not and cannot be - spherical)
In my camp, none of us care whatsoever what Plato said.
Newton was known as agelastic (never laughing / hard-ass), however there is one anecdote on the books of an exception. Supposedly a classmate came upon him reading euclid, and asked him why in the world he was reading that old junk - to which he burst into uproarious laughter. In fairness, your answer may have been slightly different had I NOT mistakenly written plato, when I intended to write pythagoras. Would it have made a difference? Anyway, the history of science is critical to understanding it - and I suspect this is one of the reasons it is, largely, so poorly taught. All of philosophy is built on premises/posits/tenets/assumptions, and science / natural philosophy is no exception. Without studying and critically evaluating those foundations, laid in bygone eras, you may be building on sand.
We believe that we have concrete evidence today, and that is all that matters.
There is that verbiage of belief where it does not belong again! It is true, you do believe that - and are required to as a matter of rote / dogma of the faith. If the concrete evidence you believe exists actually does, this could be a short conversation!
But in your camp, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might believe that modern science is built upon twisted assumptions about the worlds shape that goes back all the way to the Greeks. I don't want to put up a strawman though, just thinking out loud.
Kind of? Again, I personally endeavor diligently to leave belief out of it whenever possible! I am not deluded enough to think I am completely successful, however.
You might be surprised how little the world changes when our mere conceptions of it do. If the world is flat, then everything we observe happens on a flat earth. No contradictions, no issues, no stress.
Nothing in science depends on the sphericity of the earth the way it is preached in the mythology. No technology relies on it, etc. Yes the greeks are the first on record to make the mistake, and it kind of got "grandfathered" in because it was largely unimportant scientifically - but there need be no grand conspiracy for humans to constantly be stupid and wrong as they always are. It's a comedy of err's you see.
So in other words, if the sustained convex of the curving of the water's surface was measured physically (I'm curious what tool does this) and was non-zero, this would disprove the flat-earth model.
Not really, however it would suggest against it. Establishing this measurement would allow for spherical to be a possible shape of the world. Without that measurement, there is nothing empirical or scientific about the globe posit.
Are we on the same page here? This is exactly what I mean by falsifiable. And I like how straightforward it is as a hypothesis.
More or less, yes - I think so! I also like how straightforward and innocuous this entire subject appears at first glance - this "hypothesis" included.
I'm definitely following you.
Good! That's more than half the battle.
A global elitist conspiracy is technically possible.
And yet nothing so fantastic or grandiose is in any way necessitated. The wiki here does a good job describing how the "conspiracy" need not be very large, nor specifically pertaining to the shape of the world. The MIC is quite real in any case, and is not a trustworthy source.
For example, we'd have to assume that there has been widespread lying and brainwashing, and somehow no leaks!
No, we wouldn't HAVE to assume that. Humanity requires no help to be constantly stupid and wrong. In any case, in regards to the fabrication of "space" and the "space age" there have been "leaks" - and some bad things happened to them. Regardless, you can have leaks all day long, as long as no one does anything substantive about them - remember edward snowden?
I think it's really sad the way flat earth believers are treated sometimes
I agree, though I have seen irrational intolerance, prejudice, and ad hominem on all sides. Pretty much what you expect from "belief cults" regardless of under the guise of science, known as scientism, or more traditional deities. The trouble is the belief bit - it has no place in science and is across purposes. If people actually KNEW what the shape of the world was, and how they knew, and how to convey it effectively to others - we would not be in this mess right now. It is all a mass failure of "education" in my view. People who believe the world is any shape have faith, not knowledge - and it is a bitter lesson for a lot of them. It is little wonder they are so easily swayed from believing the world is a sphere, to believing it is some other shape - and never recognizing that BELIEF is the thing leading them astray all along. When you know, and you know how you know - you are much more difficult to f about. That is probably a major reason why these skills were not fostered in generations of "students". Abject appeal to authority is much preferred to a learned and critical populous. It has been discovered that the best time to instate tyranny, is in the nursery.
Just look at religion...
I am! And it is being disingenuously/erroneously presented as fact/knowledge and science when it is mythology/religion and/or unvalidated speculation (at absolute best). The myth of scientism is grand, and pernicious - just like most religious mythology. Cognitive dissonance is indeed painless - there is a LOT of confusion on what that is and how it works out there. Denialism is not involved in earnest flat earth research. Though MIC sources like nasa et al are denied/discarded outright by some, the vast majority of times the data is simply reinterpreted - not discarded. It is all too easy to simply deny the reality of some things, and continue in your natural default delusion. We must be ever vigilante not to let that happen, even - and perhaps especially - if it is inevitable.
But when you selectively disbelieve evidence, then that is what makes it unfalsifiable.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you/they aren't still objectively wrong while ignoring all the reality and observation that conflicts with your/their worldview (or posit/theory in our diminished context). Consensus is not a part of science, and we can't (and shouldn't) force people to give up their delusions - they have to want to do it themselves, earnestly. We should encourage, and educate, and demonstrate - but never force. Even if you succeeded, from unclean means comes an unclean result. As I said, most all "concrete" evidence is merely reinterpreted - not discarded or denied.
NASA's images are for sure not the only evidence we have in support of globe earth theory, but it is the most important by far because of the scale of the coordinated conspiracy that would be required in order to create the hoax.
We are dipping into the hypothetical here, however a large coordinated conspiracy is not necessitated. Thorough compartmentalization can be employed to keep virtually everyone in the dark, and the key players only with limited access/information and unending surveillance - all speculation of course. No conspiracy is really required at all to take pictures with normal lenses at high altitude and mistake barrel distortion for the "curvature of the earth" you expected to see there due to conditioning through rote from childhood under the guise of education. As I said, people have no trouble being wrong - and it requires no conspiracy.
Questioning the validity of a single researcher and lab is within reason but if you are opening to question the validity of a coordinated effort of physicists as large as NASA, how can you believe anything at all?
Well, you can't really believe anything the MIC says - ever. It's something everyone knows, but few people apply it to nasa for nationalistic pride / hubris reasons. Everyone knows not to trust the government, but nasa is a direct descendant of george washington for some reason.
It is a good and valid question, however. The wonderful thing about science is it requires no faith. Hell, it may even require doubt! Trust is not involved. If it is demonstrable, then there's probably something to it - if not, it is probably fiction. The longer I live the more I side with planck and newton; The only means of knowledge at our disposal is experiment; all else is poetry and imagination.
You KNOW that NASA lied?
Many times, about many things!
Getting a shred of evidence that NASA lied would be impossible
Your faith compels you, and other good citizens/employees and "students", to believe that it is impossible. It's impossible because there is no chance that they lied right? Or is it impossible because they are superhuman gods that can't make mistakes and never lie? There is lots of evidence, going over it will take time - however I highly recommend the wiki here - "the conspiracy" page can provide a pretty comprehensive overview!
-
@james38
Part 2 of 2
NASA hands you the greatest evidence of all time that you could ever dream of in answering the age-old question of the shape of our world
If you accept the presumptive narrative, then yes. Not only are they the ones to hand it to us, they are the only ones in the history of humanity that have ever done so AND are the only ones today that can do the same (along with their MIC affiliates, of course). The earth being spherical was disingenuously/erroneously taught to students as validated fact for millennia before they were the first to validate it in the 50's-60's - again, IF you subscribe to the presumptive narrative required in school without dissent.
And given that evidence, you call them liars and choose to believe the opposite of what your eyes see.
Once again, I am rubber and you are glue. The "evidence" that you are talking about ONLY exists on tv. What my eyes see, and yours - is the same, and it is not a spherical world. That's why they have to get us so young you see. The globe must be "explained" to us early and often, and it isn't organically divined from the senses. It is not consistent with what we observe, and the things we are taught ARE evidence for it do not bear scrutiny. They were designed only for fooling/convincing children.
it's unfalsifiable once you choose to selectively disbelieve certain evidence.
Not really, we are really only talking about the 1 evidence. The footage from nasa et al. Surely the posit/theory that the globe is real is "concrete" enough to discard that one source and still have plenty of evidence/validation - right?
How exactly do the laws of hydrostatics help in forming hypotheses related to the two theories? Have these hypotheses been tested?
I mentioned that very same concern above! Without that rock-solid established linkage between them, there is no necessary relevance/pertinence to the results of testing the hypothesis on the greater theory.
First, not to be pedantic - but natural law is established solely by rigorous and repeated measurement in science. Nothing more. No hypothesis, no nothing. We know about this natural law by measuring and observing water's behavior at rest, repeatedly over the past several hundred years. It is still readily demonstrable today as it always was - use any apparatus you like (just make sure it measures the damn water!) - and because there exists no measurement to refute the law - it stands today as it has for centuries.
In order for the posit of the earth being spherical, waters surface MUST curve in an eternally sustained convex curvature at rest as required by the globe model (and calculated / defined within it). It is all well and good to say something happens, and you're like - totally sure about it - but in science we require validation and in this case that can only come from direct measurement that does not exist and, if it did, would contradict a known and readily demonstrable scientific law.
I'm afraid our conversation is inflating a lot, so please don't feel pressure to respond to every single one of my points. I hope all the fluff is useful to help us get acquainted at least :) I'll give you my top 3 questions/arguments, and then maybe you can do the same for me
.
Cool. Good things take time. Yes, I think fluff and acquaintance is valuable in this context.
1) What is your proof that NASA lied?
2) Can you explain in more depth about the hydrostatics?
3) If NASA was able to pull off the greatest scientific hoax of all time with such great success, how can we ever believe what any scientific organization ever tells us again?
1. I would recommend starting with the wiki, as it provides a good overview. The evidences that I find most compelling (which we will likely need to discuss further to fully convey) are the fact that "the infinite sky vacuum above our heads"/"space" writ-large is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws, the notable whistleblowers/critics that wound up murdered, and the copious amounts of faked footage.
2. Yes! Do I need to? I am most happy to answer any specific question you may have (if I can) and there is a lot to talk about! Roughly in order for the world to be potentially spherical, and the shape and composition we believe and have mapped - the surface of oceans and other large bodies of water at rest must curve in a sustained convex shape that has never been measured and doing so would violate a natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries. The mere fact that this measurement does not exist should seriously concern/worry any empirical scientist worth their salt.
3. My suggestion - trust, but verify! Irreproducible "science" is not science at all. In any case, NASA is not really a scientific organization, they just play one on tv. It is a MIC organization.
I'll have to give more thought to specific questions/comments to respond with, I'm spent for now!
-
@james38
A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :
I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.
It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity. Rejoice! You have your data already. Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist. We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science. It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science. It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.
I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth thoery since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.
I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things. The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.
Now suppose NHWA (National Hydronautics and Water Administration) goes and conducts this test... I think you see where I am going with this. What would stop you from just disbelieving those scientists?
Nothing! Though because science requires no (and is hindered by) trust, it isn't relevant. My guideline is, trust - but verify. If their findings can't, won't and/or have not been repeated independently - they aren't science at all. In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward. I recommend performing the observations/measurements on a large lake that was, ideally, frozen under mostly still conditions. You would not be the first to conduct such measurements, nor should you be the last. There is no substitute for real knowledge that only rigorous and validated experience can provide.
I think your disbelief in NASA is, in fact, the most foundational and unifying proposition in your camp.
It is a common and defensible view, however it is not really required to be wrong about the shape of the world. I say that for the purposes of scientific discussion, irreproducible "science" with no oversight - like the footage we receive from NASA et al is not admissible in the discussion on those grounds alone. Speculation (and even evidence) as to hoaxes/fraud and the rest of it are tangential and not central to the topic.
Yes yes yes, we can!
No, we most certainly can not. Let's say the picture is valid and real. Perhaps (pictures can never serve as the sole evidence/proof - but hypothetically speaking...), merely with that one picture, we have established that antarctica is not a ring that encircles the world (which was merely a speculation anyway) - but we have a LOT more world to cover in order to establish the shape of the entire thing! Right?
The only possible way that this picture exists at the same time as the earth not being a globe is if the picture is a hoax.
Whenever you catch yourself, or anyone else, talking about how no other interpretation of the data/phenomenon is possible (or anything is impossible, really) - you are most likely suffering from bias and a lack of imagination. It is all to do with arthur c clarke's first law. The picture could indeed be quite real, the world could still be flat, and antarctica is just not a ring that encircles the world! There is almost never only one possible explanation, at least in potentia.
But tell me how this is falsifiable
Trust is a funny thing. You can spend a lifetime building it, and then in one mistake/f*up/violation of it and "poof" - up it goes. The entity of NASA had full trust, the way only hubris and nationalistic pride could ever assure and deliver. They violated it repeatedly. The trust was theirs to lose - and they lost the absolute hell out of it. This is of course, all a matter of historical record - though there are contemporary examples as well.
I recognize, as you most likely do, that it is a one way ticket - and this isn't really right. Trust is very hard to build, but once violated it is almost impossible to restore. Even the mere accusation of violating trust (no smoke without fire, or so the gullible meat puppets believe) is enough to ruin/tarnish most people forever. This is not a scientific aspect or assessment however, as trust plays no role in science except detriment. Nasa, largely, doesn't practice science, and it has no science to share. They are merely a production company that makes propagandist footage and spectacle, but I do not expect and do not want you to take my word, nor any others, on this. Nothing can be accepted, regardless of source, without adequate validation first!
-
Before I give you a full response, can you tell me what MIC is so I can look it up?
-
Absolutely! Please don't be shy about questions!
The MIC is an acronym first coined/popularized by eisenhower in his televised farewell address.
It stands for military industrial complex. It will take you quite some time to research it thoroughly, but it is very important to understand and well worth the effort required. Please let me know if you have any specific questions about it!
-
@james38
A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :
I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.
It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity. Rejoice! You have your data already. Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist. We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science. It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science. It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.
I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth theory since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.
I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things. The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.
I have personally measured the curvature (convex) of the Earth's oceans using gyroscopes. This technology has been around a long time and the readings have been verified as accurate.
The only possible conclusion is that the Earth is round or using a gyroscope isn't a legitimate measurement technique.
-
Ah, ok! I know about the military-industrial complex, just never heard of the acronym.
Firstly thank you again for a thoughtful response! I'm sorry I can't respond to every part, I enjoy reading it and find a lot of what you are saying agreeable.
I'll start by asserting that words do not have exact meanings but only family resemblances (like Wittgenstein said). We still should attempt to agree on working definitions for words. But until we come to that point of agreement, we ought not to lean in too much to our working own working definitions. I am a researcher and in my lab we use the word "debate" constantly. You say that "Debate has formal rules, like all games.". I say we are simply not talking about the same thing, and are slipping into a semantics argument. The scientific "debates" I participate in aren't really what you are describing. Similarly, you hear the word "belief" and associate the word differently than I do. I associate "belief" with logic, not faith. You say "The claims I make are validated as correct and supported through and by research, and do not rely upon belief." meanwhile I'd say "I will believe whatever is validated as correct and supported through and by research". You say "belief has no place in knowledge/fact". I say "My beliefs are determined by my knowledge/facts". I hope I'm being clear in that I'm not saying you are wrong in your definitions, but that the conversation becomes convoluted and off-topic if we push our own exact definitions of words.
So I suggest that instead of fixating on words, we both try to understand the deeper views that the other has, and together let's iron out exactly how we can think so differently that we both come to different conclusions about how much we know about the shape of our world. I hope that both of us can learn some things in the process.
Pushing aside the mistranslation of Socrates (interesting!), we both agree that absolute knowledge is impossible but strive to approach it as much as possible through the scientific method. As you say, "There is only one way to [determine the shape of the world].". If I understand correctly, you mean the scientific method:
(changes bolded)
1. Given a falsifiable posit / theory to explain a phenomenon,
2. Generate a hypothesis that is capable of confirming without a doubt that the theory is false
3. Run an experiment to test that hypothesis, which will either disprove the theory or fail or disprove it
You challenged the linkage between theories and hypotheses. Again, I don't want to fixate too much on semantics. I think if you want to replace theory with posit, that will work just the same. But my deepest point here is that the purpose of a hypothesis is to test the falsifiable aspect of a theory. Absolute knowledge is impossible, so good hypotheses attempt to disprove falsifiable theories rather than prove them. As you say, "If the hypothesis is not solidly connected/comprised in the theory, this deduction may be unsound.". I completely agree.
Without studying and critically evaluating those foundations, laid in bygone eras, you may be building on sand.
Interesting story about Newton and a good point overall. I'm not going get very far trying to say that historical thinkers aren't important, and I think knew while I was writing that we don't care what Plato said that I'd probably regret it. I'll backtrack and just say I don't think he's relevant or plays a role in my belief in the world's shape. I know the greeks are all a big part of your historical explanation for how globe theory came about. And I'm not going to dispute any of that, because my views do not contradict the possibility that all of that is true - we could have believed the world was round without evidence for millennia, but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence today.
To be honest, on a philosophical level I think we are mostly on the same page. I'm satisfied we both respect and understand the scientific method and I am comfortable moving on to specific evidence at this point. I do think some of this, especially falsifiability might bubble up. But we'll see.
So onto the science...
There exists about as much "proof" that the entire world is spherical as it is flat.
The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.
Possibly, but they come from a demonstrably (and repeatedly) untrustworthy source. The sad truth is they are the ONLY evidence (supposedly that remains).
Space doesn't exist except on tv, and I know how wild that sounds.
Pictures are also a suspect form of evidence, as I have many pictures of the loch ness monster and bigfoot. For this reason, they can never serve as the sole evidence or "proof", as they essentially MUST in the case of "space" writ-large.
that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old (or at least was until the 50's/60's, if you believe what you see on tv)
Now I really want to get to the bottom of our disagreement over the NASA expeditions. Getting to that later.
No, we most certainly can not. Let's say the picture is valid and real. Perhaps (pictures can never serve as the sole evidence/proof - but hypothetically speaking...), merely with that one picture, we have established that antarctica is not a ring that encircles the world (which was merely a speculation anyway) - but we have a LOT more world to cover in order to establish the shape of the entire thing! Right?
What do you think about south pole, like the literal one that people can visit as well as the scientific research labs scattered around Antarctica? Are these fake or real? If they are real, wouldn't you agree they are inconsistent with a "ice wall" theory? And also about Antarctica, you mentioned that the existence of it is not proof of globe theory. Ok, so what is the best explanation that you can think of on how Antarctica can exist while the earth is not a globe? You said hypothetically there could be more world to cover. But I mean specifically, where is Antarctica if not a ring and if not at the south pole? At least the ice wall/ring theory explains how both Argentina and New Zealand can both be so close to it at the same time.
So you were totally right. My eyes opened up when I was reading the bit from tfes wiki conspiracy page. It's not as inherently absurd as I thought it would be! Reading it felt like a mini psychological thriller. But let's focus on the evidence...
You might be surprised how little the world changes when our mere conceptions of it do. If the world is flat, then everything we observe happens on a flat earth. No contradictions, no issues, no stress.
Nothing in science depends on the sphericity of the earth the way it is preached in the mythology. No technology relies on it, etc.
The posit and conclusion (that the earth most likely cannot be spherical) can be falsified, yes. It can also be demonstrated, historically, that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old
And yet nothing so fantastic or grandiose [as a global elitist conspiracy] is in any way necessitated. The wiki here does a good job describing how the "conspiracy" need not be very large, nor specifically pertaining to the shape of the world. The MIC is quite real in any case, and is not a trustworthy source.
We are dipping into the hypothetical here, however a large coordinated conspiracy is not necessitated. Thorough compartmentalization can be employed to keep virtually everyone in the dark, and the key players only with limited access/information and unending surveillance - all speculation of course. No conspiracy is really required at all to take pictures with normal lenses at high altitude and mistake barrel distortion for the "curvature of the earth" you expected to see there due to conditioning through rote from childhood under the guise of education. As I said, people have no trouble being wrong - and it requires no conspiracy.
No, we wouldn't HAVE to assume [that their would be widespread lying and brainwashing, and no leaks]. Humanity requires no help to be constantly stupid and wrong. In any case, in regards to the fabrication of "space" and the "space age" there have been "leaks" - and some bad things happened to them. Regardless, you can have leaks all day long, as long as no one does anything substantive about them - remember edward snowden?
So you were right that the wiki provides a great overview. I'm starting to understand more where you are coming from. Believing in "the conspiracy" (faked space expeditions) seems less absurd to me than it used to!
So you posit that NASA's expeditions were faked. I posit they were not. I would love to exchange some evidence.
I'll start with a section straight from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings, "Existence and age of Moon rocks". Just go and read it, it's only a short paragraph. I see this as an example of some simple and straightforward evidence from multiple 3rd party sources that verify that NASA did collect moon rocks. Do you deny this?
Now, let's look at some evidence for the staging of the landings that you mentioned...
The evidences that I find most compelling (which we will likely need to discuss further to fully convey) are the fact that "the infinite sky vacuum above our heads"/"space" writ-large is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws, the notable whistleblowers/critics that wound up murdered, and the copious amounts of faked footage.
I'd just like specifics...
1. "space" violates natural laws: please be more specific
2. notable whistleblowers/critics wound up murdered: who?
3. faked footage: show me?
Well, you can't really believe anything the MIC says - ever.
Everyone knows not to trust the government
It's interesting hearing your biases. In my opinion, these views are extreme. I'll leave it at that.
I mentioned that very same concern above! Without that rock-solid established linkage between them, there is no necessary relevance/pertinence to the results of testing the hypothesis on the greater theory.
First, not to be pedantic - but natural law is established solely by rigorous and repeated measurement in science. Nothing more. No hypothesis, no nothing. We know about this natural law by measuring and observing water's behavior at rest, repeatedly over the past several hundred years. It is still readily demonstrable today as it always was - use any apparatus you like (just make sure it measures the damn water!) - and because there exists no measurement to refute the law - it stands today as it has for centuries.
Not really, however, it would suggest against it. Establishing this measurement would allow for spherical to be a possible shape of the world. Without that measurement, there is nothing empirical or scientific about the globe posit.
2. Yes! Do I need to? I am most happy to answer any specific question you may have (if I can) and there is a lot to talk about! Roughly in order for the world to be potentially spherical, and the shape and composition we believe and have mapped - the surface of oceans and other large bodies of water at rest must curve in a sustained convex shape that has never been measured and doing so would violate a natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries. The mere fact that this measurement does not exist should seriously concern/worry any empirical scientist worth their salt.
It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity. Rejoice! You have your data already. Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist. We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science. It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science. It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.
In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward. I recommend performing the observations/measurements on a large lake that was, ideally, frozen under mostly still conditions. You would not be the first to conduct such measurements, nor should you be the last. There is no substitute for real knowledge that only rigorous and validated experience can provide.
I'm intrigued by the convex experiments you've been talking about. So I looked up and found parallel articles about past experiments:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bedford_Level_experiment
The story in both articles are similar except that the tfes article excludes the final part where Oldham reproduces Wallaces results. Why is this? Surely the author of that tfes article must have had some reason to exclude that crucial information about Oldham's experiment. Did they have reason to believe Oldham's experiment was not verified? If so, why is there no comment on it, unless the writer of the tfes article had an agenda to select evidence in support of their view.
So do you see your frozen lake experiment as being a continuation of these studies? And do the articles I linked above perhaps miss any other experiments that have been conducted since then?
-
The story in both articles are similar except that the tfes article excludes the final part where Oldham reproduces Wallaces results. Why is this? Surely the author of that tfes article must have had some reason to exclude that crucial information about Oldham's experiment. Did they have reason to believe Oldham's experiment was not verified? If so, why is there no comment on it, unless the writer of the tfes article had an agenda to select evidence in support of their view.
Here is another Bedford Level type experiment that you might find interesting.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward.
Its disingenuous to invoke hydrostatic law in your argument, when hydrostatics specifically account for the influence of gravity.
-
I literally just joined here today, not to troll, but because I'm fascinated by the beliefs and rationale behind them. This thread is very long and I had to skim it, but the following caught my attention:
It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.
Correct. The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.
I'd also never considered that [some] people are just very skeptical of the globe theory as opposed to simply believing that the Earth is flat, or a flat disc. However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.
I can totally understand why, back in historical times, people would posit that the Earth was a round, flat disc, with the atmosphere and celestial bodies being part of what they call the firmament. With no other knowledge or experience of the Earth and all above it, that's a reasonable posit. However, as time goes on and we get more and more experience, more empirical data, more science to prove/disprove things, there has to come a point where such evidence can't just be ignored or explained away by incompatible theories.
There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:
1. The Sun and Moon don't change in size as they move across the sky. In FET, they would change in size as they move towards and away from us.
2. The Sun and Moon rise/set above/below the horizon. In FET, they would just stay at the same linear path across the sky, getting smaller and dimmer.
3. We get eclipses. In FET, it's not possible to get Eclipses.
4. Different parts of the Earth experience different seasons at the same time. In FET it would be the same season everywhere.
5. Different parts of the Earth observe different constellations. In FET we would all see the same ones.
6. Sticks of identical length but in different parts of the Earth cast different length shadows at the same time of day. In FET the shadows would be the same length everywhere.
7. Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon. In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship.
8. Measurement of actual distances between countries shows that the distance between lines of longitude are longest at the equator, then get shorter as you go north AND shorter when you go south. In FET the distance between them can only increase as you go from the north (centre) to the ice wall (outer edge)
9. Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour. In FET there would be no measured rotation.
10. We only ever see one face of the moon no matter where you are on Earth. In FET, if the Moon were accepted as being a sphere, different people would see different faces of the moon depending on their location. If the Moon were accepted as being a disc, different people would see a different shaped moon, round when direct, elliptical when viewed at an angle.
ALL of the above can only be explained by the Earth being a globe, rotating about a titled axis once every 24 hours, itself orbited by a tidally locked Moon while collectively orbiting the Sun once every 364.25 days. Not only does one simple globe model quite elegantly support ALL of the above, it does so with the ability to predict the exact occurrence of celestial events well into the future. Further, we have actual photographic evidence of the Earth from space to back up the findings that indicate the Earth is indeed round.
To simply dispute those facts, whether you believe in a flat Earth or not, makes no sense to me. I mean sure, don't believe everything you are shown and told right, especially on the internet? But come on, we all have eyes, most of us can use them, and those who do can observe most of those proofs for themselves. If FET could also accommodate them, with no "invisible moons" to cater for eclipses or other such incompatible workarounds like a "wall of ice" that hasn't been observed, then fair enough, debate away. But this really shouldn't be a debate.
-
Here is another Bedford Level type experiment that you might find interesting.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment
Interesting. So now between this and Oldham, I'm seeing two experiments showing that large bodies of water have a non-zero convex. I'm curious to hear Jack's rebuttal on these.
There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:
I'm here for a similar reason. But I can assure you people probably have lengthy responses to a lot of these. And no matter if you believe the world is flat or a globe, I don't think any of us have the time or capacity to process all of them at once... Why don't you pick just one item from the list you made for an in-depth discussion, and see where it goes from there?
-
I'm here for a similar reason. But I can assure you people probably have lengthy responses to a lot of these. And no matter if you believe the world is flat or a globe, I don't think any of us have the time or capacity to process all of them at once... Why don't you pick just one item from the list you made for an in-depth discussion, and see where it goes from there?
Oh you're absolutely right, and that's good advice man, I shall see if I can create a thread that addresses one of these and see if it gets any traction and logical, sensible discussion. Probably best to do a search first though, lol
-
I'm not going to derail the debate between @James38 and @jack44556677 as I find it very interesting. I just thought I would make some observations.
While the above posts go into a lot of detail as to what constitutes a theory or an acceptable or verifiable source. I'm glad that the fundamental differences lie in competing photographic and video evidence for and against FET. The only debates I've had in the past were futile efforts with globe fundamentalists who have nothing but distain for FET (so the above debate is a breath of fresh air to me). One of the brick walls I come up against in these debates was when using photographic or video evidence. Usually at this point I get dismissed for presenting videos rather than "real science" such as what is found in peer reviewed scientific journals (the debate always gets very sour when I ask for peer reviewed articles in support of the globe theory in return) And that's where the debate usually ends.
I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnwX3oSfaM
Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.
@James38 - the pictures of Antarctica you linked us are physically impossible to acquire. Just look at how the earth is illuminated - almost perfect uniform lighting over an entire hemisphere. This is not possible at any time of day. The complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth is another tell-tale sign.
I'm new to this forum and am not familiar with what is or not in the wiki, I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. But I would like to touch on the thermodynamic impossibilities relating to the infinite vacuum of space that @jack44556677 touched on. This vacuum has always been a thorn in NASA's side - specifically in relation to the space suits and rocket trajectories. I'll give one example without getting into the mathematics behind it (I can if you want). A spacesuit in the vaccuum of space would create such a powerful pressure differential that (if it didn't destroy the suit) would render it so incredibly rigid that no human could maneuvre inside it. The pressure inside a basketball is 7.5PSI, the pressure inside a spacesuit would be double this at least (if you take the flawed assumption that space is 0psi). People became wise to this so NASA had to introduce a depressurisation step (all of this post the moonlanding era) which also required pumping pure oxygen into the suit to prevent the astronaut from getting the bends from the pressure drop. This is one of many holes that NASA have had to patch over the years. They can't keep up with the general public's progressively higher understanding of physics, so they have to keep painting over the cracks and explain themselves out of situations. But they have nothing to fear, because for as long as 99% people believe the images they publish they don't really have to explain themselves all that well at all.
In relation to it being too big a secret for so many people to have, I completely agree with what @jack44556677 said above. There is no mass conspiracy here. NASA is little more than a conglomerate of different projects (most of which is likely very useful research). Each scientist is completely isolated from other projects - they don't have to be in on anything. Even the person who makes the fake footage doesn't have to be in on it. Lets say I'm a very talented video editor. I get approached from a NASA representative who says "Our astronauts are so busy doing research on the ISS that they have no time to shoot videos in space for the benefit of the public. I want to offer you a 12 month contract to create some digestable marketing material that publicizes the great work we do here at NASA". I would be delighted for the opportunity and wouldn't dare question the means in which NASA use the footage as I would likely break my contract and lose my reimbursement. Does this seem like such an intangible scenario?
-
I literally just joined here today, not to troll, but because I'm fascinated by the beliefs and rationale behind them. This thread is very long and I had to skim it, but the following caught my attention:
It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.
Correct. The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.
I'd also never considered that [some] people are just very skeptical of the globe theory as opposed to simply believing that the Earth is flat, or a flat disc. However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.
I can totally understand why, back in historical times, people would posit that the Earth was a round, flat disc, with the atmosphere and celestial bodies being part of what they call the firmament. With no other knowledge or experience of the Earth and all above it, that's a reasonable posit. However, as time goes on and we get more and more experience, more empirical data, more science to prove/disprove things, there has to come a point where such evidence can't just be ignored or explained away by incompatible theories.
There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:
1. The Sun and Moon don't change in size as they move across the sky. In FET, they would change in size as they move towards and away from us.
2. The Sun and Moon rise/set above/below the horizon. In FET, they would just stay at the same linear path across the sky, getting smaller and dimmer.
3. We get eclipses. In FET, it's not possible to get Eclipses.
4. Different parts of the Earth experience different seasons at the same time. In FET it would be the same season everywhere.
5. Different parts of the Earth observe different constellations. In FET we would all see the same ones.
6. Sticks of identical length but in different parts of the Earth cast different length shadows at the same time of day. In FET the shadows would be the same length everywhere.
7. Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon. In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship.
8. Measurement of actual distances between countries shows that the distance between lines of longitude are longest at the equator, then get shorter as you go north AND shorter when you go south. In FET the distance between them can only increase as you go from the north (centre) to the ice wall (outer edge)
9. Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour. In FET there would be no measured rotation.
10. We only ever see one face of the moon no matter where you are on Earth. In FET, if the Moon were accepted as being a sphere, different people would see different faces of the moon depending on their location. If the Moon were accepted as being a disc, different people would see a different shaped moon, round when direct, elliptical when viewed at an angle.
ALL of the above can only be explained by the Earth being a globe, rotating about a titled axis once every 24 hours, itself orbited by a tidally locked Moon while collectively orbiting the Sun once every 364.25 days. Not only does one simple globe model quite elegantly support ALL of the above, it does so with the ability to predict the exact occurrence of celestial events well into the future. Further, we have actual photographic evidence of the Earth from space to back up the findings that indicate the Earth is indeed round.
To simply dispute those facts, whether you believe in a flat Earth or not, makes no sense to me. I mean sure, don't believe everything you are shown and told right, especially on the internet? But come on, we all have eyes, most of us can use them, and those who do can observe most of those proofs for themselves. If FET could also accommodate them, with no "invisible moons" to cater for eclipses or other such incompatible workarounds like a "wall of ice" that hasn't been observed, then fair enough, debate away. But this really shouldn't be a debate.
I'm also new here. I don't mean to be rude but the fact that you don't have the answers to those questions does not mean you have proof that the earth is a globe, it just means you need to brush up on flat earth theory:
1. Not sure why you think the sun and moon would change size in FET. It's all perspective and positioning relative to the sun and moon. There is no real difference here between globe and flat earth theory
2. One thing is known for sure in FET, the sun moves beyond your vanishing point. Your view of the sun can be completely obscured by a mountain or a crest of a wave when it moves far enough away. No matter how high it is, if it is far enough away it will be at such a small viewing angle from your perspective that a very small object is enough to obscure it's view from you. Not sure how the moon works myself.
3. In FET, eclipses are not what you think they are. I'm not sure myself
4. Not true re. FET. The seasons change because the sun changes it's distance from the centre (or a different phenomenon happens that we are not aware of yet)
5. Not sure where you got this assumption with FET and constellations
6. This doesn't make any sense to me
7. You think ships disappear from the bottom up but the boat is simply getting obscured by the crests of the waves due to the angle at which you are observing it. Then it subsequently leaves your vanishing point.
8. Not sure what you mean by this
9. There is no rotation claimed in FET. (And also the means in which rotation is measured in globe theory is hotly debated)
10. Not sure what you mean by this. You are projecting what you think FET is and accepting this as the FET argument.
-
I'm also new here. I don't mean to be rude but the fact that you don't have the answers to those questions does not mean you have proof that the earth is a globe, it just means you need to brush up on flat earth theory:
1. Not sure why you think the sun and moon would change size in FET. It's all perspective and positioning relative to the sun and moon. There is no real difference here between globe and flat earth theory
2. One thing is known for sure in FET, the sun moves beyond your vanishing point. Your view of the sun can be completely obscured by a mountain or a crest of a wave when it moves far enough away. No matter how high it is, if it is far enough away it will be at such a small viewing angle from your perspective that a very small object is enough to obscure it's view from you. Not sure how the moon works myself.
3. In FET, eclipses are not what you think they are. I'm not sure myself
4. Not true re. FET. The seasons change because the sun changes it's distance from the centre (or a different phenomenon happens that we are not aware of yet)
5. Not sure where you got this assumption with FET and constellations
6. This doesn't make any sense to me
7. You think ships disappear from the bottom up but the boat is simply getting obscured by the crests of the waves due to the angle at which you are observing it. Then it subsequently leaves your vanishing point.
8. Not sure what you mean by this
9. There is no rotation claimed in FET. (And also the means in which rotation is measured in globe theory is hotly debated)
10. Not sure what you mean by this. You are projecting what you think FET is and accepting this as the FET argument.
Hi Mark, thanks for your time and reply. With all due respect, we live in a round Earth society. A single, simple, elegant model exists of the world that accounts for all observations and is backed up by repeatable experimentation, carried out by multiple different people over the millennia. My posting those questions isn't me saying "here you go, proof that the Earth is round", it's challenging the notion that the Earth is flat. Similar, but different. Indeed, I've done a lot of reading up in the Wiki while I've been here, and it would seem that you would benefit too because a lot of what you use in support of FET is somewhat incorrect. Perhaps my earlier points were not clear so I'll do my best to clarify against both perspectives.
- I'm not sure you understand how perspective and parallax works. Notice when you are in a car and look out of the side window, the trees close to you are whizzing past, but the mountains in the distance hardly seem to move? Now look out of the front window. Notice how the trees grow in apparent size rapidly when they get close to you, but the mountains in the distance remain the same size. In RET, the Sun and Moon are large and far away, so they don't change their angular size. This is what you observe in reality In FET, they are small and close, and as you contradicted yourself in point 2, must change in angular size as they move towards or away from you. What can explain why they don't change size under FET is the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) theory. Have a read of it in the Wiki, it explains a lot of the equivalences.
- In FET, the Sun is, and remains at roughly 3,000 miles above the Earth. If the Sun is to ever move behind anything, it would have to be 3,000 miles tall, regardless of how far away the Sun is or whatever its angular size, which you agreed gets smaller the further away it gets. This is not what we see in reality. In reality we see a fixed size Sun get cut off at the horizon. Again, EA theory can partially explain this away.
- Well, I can tell you what I do know now. In FET, a solar eclipse is the same thing as in RET - the moon passing in front of the Sun (albeit on weird trajectories). A lunar eclipse under RET is simply the Earth casting a shadow on the surface of the Moon. A lunar eclipse under FET is, yep, you guessed it, a consequence of the EA theory where the Moon just moves out of the path of the curved sunlight.
- Exactly, the Sun changing its position relative to the centre of a flat Earth by an unknown mechanism, or a globe Earth rotating about a tilted axis, simply orbiting the Sun under know laws of motion and gravitation. Again, the two are equivalent, but take your pick.
- The "assumption" is formed on the basis that the entire flat Earth is said to be contained under some kind of dome, and the stars are simply points of light in that dome. Bear in mind that in reality, we know the stars remain in fixed positions relative to the Earth, that the stars we see change throughout the year, and that the Northern Hemisphere has one view of the stars, and the Southern Hemisphere has a different view. If the Earth was flat, and the stars were on a dome above it, every part of the Earth would be able to see ALL the same stars. It doesn't, although I'm sure bendy light will explain that one too.
- Look up Eratosthenes and his experiment to calculate the circumference of the globe (or diameter of the flat Earth as is proposed here). The general idea is that if you had a stick on a round Earth, pointing directly at the Sun overhead, you wouldn't see any shadow, right? A stick of identical length on a different part of the round Earth at the same time would be pointing away from the Sun, and so it would cast a shadow. This is because the Sun is millions of miles away and produces essentially parallel rays of light. Under FET, the only way this observation can be explained is by the close placement of the Sun resulting in diverging rays (and possibly the EA as well, I'm not 100% on this one yet).
- Well no, there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there. Under FET, if I'm at sea level viewing a ship, the vertical angle I'm observing it at never changes. All that would happen is the ship would get smaller. Just like your flawed analogy with the Sun getting obscured in point 2, those waves would have to be as high as the ship to obscure it, which implies that the further out to sea you get, the bigger the waves get. It's rather the opposite on Earth isn't it? EA tries to explain why it disappears from the bottom up, but fails because if EA were true, the entire ship would just slowly fade out of view as its light rays curved away from you.
- Get yourself a model of a globe. Those horizontal lines are lines of latitude. On a globe Earth they describe how close you are to the North/South poles. Pick one of the lines of latitude North, say 45 degrees, and draw two points on it using the lines of longitude as a guide. Pick the same latitude in the Southern hemisphere, 45 degrees South, and again, put two marks at the same lines of longitude. Those sets of points you drew are the same distance apart in the North and South, agreed? This matches what we observe in reality when traveling between countries. Now, do the same thing but on a map of the flat Earth. Pick the same lines of latitude and the same lines of longitude to mark your points. Now what you'll find is that the distances between the two points are closer together in the North and further apart in the South. This is not consistent with what we see in reality using known, measured distances between countries.
- Under RET, Earth rotates. Under FET, it does not. Look up ring laser gyroscopes, see how they have been used to measure the rotation of the Earth, accurately and repeatedly, in line with millennia of additional scientific observation that obeys all known laws of motion. Denying something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't correct. The burden of proof is on those who are doubting such scientific evidence.
- Simple observation for you. Hang a football on a piece of string from the ceiling in your room and paint the football with different colours around it. That's a representation of the Moon above the flat Earth. Now get some friends or family members to sit in different parts of your room around the ball (just as people are all under, but also around the Moon in FET) and get them to tell you what they see. I can guarantee you that they will all say different colours. EA cannot explain that one away I'm afraid. If you want to replicate what you see in real life, take that same football and hang it from a tree at one end of your garden. Take those same friends/family members and all stand as far back as you can at the other end of the garden. Now you all see pretty much the same side and hence colours the football, give or take given that the relative distances aren't to scale. This is what we all observe in reality, one side of a sphere, which concludes that the Moon cannot be directly above a flat Earth within the boundaries of the disc.
Hope that helps, and one last point for thought - what force keeps the Sun and Moon up in the Sky? RET has a full model for motion and gravitation that explains it, and is so accurate that it can predict their future positions, along with the stars and planets. I've not seen anything in FET to explain what prevents the Sun and Moon from just falling down. Are they on wires hanging from the dome? Who hung them there? How?
-
Well no, there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there. Under FET, if I'm at sea level viewing a ship, the vertical angle I'm observing it at never changes. All that would happen is the ship would get smaller. Just like your flawed analogy with the Sun getting obscured in point 2, those waves would have to be as high as the ship to obscure it, which implies that the further out to sea you get, the bigger the waves get. It's rather the opposite on Earth isn't it? EA tries to explain why it disappears from the bottom up, but fails because if EA were true, the entire ship would just slowly fade out of view as its light rays curved away from you.
I'll give you an example of the opposite viewpoint. After many years at sea on ships I've had the chance to view what the shore looks like when coming closer & closer to land before going into a port. A really nice example is going into Japan and seeing Mt. Fuji at a distance. Each & every time we would go there (weather permitting) I would see Mt. Fuji rise out of the sea (very small at first) starting with the white capped peaks. At first the white peaks actually would be partly hidden in the tops of the waves and slowly rise out of the sea as we approached Japan. The mountain would also appear to get wider and wider the closer we got. You can't use the perspective argument because that would imply you should see the wide base first. That never happened. The only logical explanation that makes sense is that the earth is round. Even using the EA argument I would expect to see the much larger & wider base of the mountain whenever you could see the peak. That never happened. We also went to many large cities in many parts of the world. The highest skyscrapers would also rise out of the sea, the tops of the skyscrapers first then get taller & taller the closer we came. These are my observations confirmed many times over by many others as well.
-
I'll give you an example of the opposite viewpoint. After many years at sea on ships I've had the chance to view what the shore looks like when coming closer & closer to land before going into a port. A really nice example is going into Japan and seeing Mt. Fuji at a distance. Each & every time we would go there (weather permitting) I would see Mt. Fuji rise out of the sea (very small at first) starting with the white capped peaks. At first the white peaks actually would be partly hidden in the tops of the waves and slowly rise out of the sea as we approached Japan. The mountain would also appear to get wider and wider the closer we got. You can't use the perspective argument because that would imply you should see the wide base first. That never happened. The only logical explanation that makes sense is that the earth is round. Even using the EA argument I would expect to see the much larger & wider base of the mountain whenever you could see the peak. That never happened. We also went to many large cities in many parts of the world. The highest skyscrapers would also rise out of the sea, the tops of the skyscrapers first then get taller & taller the closer we came. These are my observations confirmed many times over by many others as well.
Hi mate, I think you may have my intentions misunderstood, and it may have been a poorly worded analogy because your post there is preaching to the choir. In my previous list I stated the following to challenge FET:
"Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon. In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship."
A ship disappearing from the bottom up is analogous to one appearing from the top down, which is in direct agreement with your real-world observations of much larger features on Earth.
The response I got was that as my angle of observation changes (I assume he meant angular size gets smaller?) it gets obscured by the crests of the waves, which is of course ludicrous. If the Earth were flat, the ship would indeed just get smaller and smaller, but at any distance, if it were obscured by waves, those waves would have to be as tall as the ship to obscure it. Hopefully all makes sense now!
Here's your flat Earth explanation though if you want to try and make sense of it:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution)
-
I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnwX3oSfaM
Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.
In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.
In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7dISGGxLRk
The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.
Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/7edKRB8.jpg)
Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:
(https://i.imgur.com/vMtaYWp.gif)
Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.
This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPvdNbftOY
How would they fake this effect?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPvdNbftOY
How would they fake this effect?
Not to mention how Skylab clips pre-date CGI capabilities and there are longer ones that exceed even vomit comet known durations...
(https://i.imgur.com/7TlayXr.gif)
-
Thank you for all the interesting points. This post will hopefully be a summary of the entire conversation thus far for anyone just joining. Unfortunately, I can't respond to the 10 points RhesusVX and Mark Antony are debating (though still interesting to read) since the original points I made are already blowing up.
To start, I'd like to respond to Mark Antony's point about debates going bad once video evidence is introduced:
The only debates I've had in the past were futile efforts with globe fundamentalists who have nothing but distain for FET (so the above debate is a breath of fresh air to me). One of the brick walls I come up against in these debates was when using photographic or video evidence. Usually at this point I get dismissed for presenting videos rather than "real science" such as what is found in peer reviewed scientific journals (the debate always gets very sour when I ask for peer reviewed articles in support of the globe theory in return) And that's where the debate usually ends.
I don't think videos should be dismissed outright. Of course, they aren't published science, but that doesn't mean we can't personally apply the scientific method in how we analyze them!
I apologize that this thread is going to look like its derailing if you read it from the beginning. After so much talk of philosophy and the definition of science, we are going to start sharing videos with each other? I started this thread as a complete newcomer here not knowing what to expect. So I started with some philosophical points, then after a good conversation with jack44556677 I felt interested in shifting the focus of the conversation towards the NASA conspiracy and some evidence of Antarctica. Again, I believe philosophy will still bubble up after we have some concrete evidence to discuss. I know most members of this forum probably have had these conversations a thousand times already, so I appreciate your patience with me as I navigate through it all.
Now onto my main pints...
As Jack44556677 said:
before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)
Yeah, tv sucks. I don't even have cable. So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it. No TV is required.
1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)
I'll start with a section straight from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings, "Existence and age of Moon rocks". Just go and read it, it's only a short paragraph. I see this as an example of some simple and straightforward evidence from multiple 3rd party sources that verify that NASA did collect moon rocks. Do you deny this?
Nobody has yet responded to this. Also quoting Mark Antony:
the fundamental differences lie in competing photographic and video evidence for and against FET
I don't think that's true, given this point about 3rd party research on moon rocks.
2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)
I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:
Thanks for sharing how you first lost confidence in NASA @MarkAntony, but can you break this down more for a newcomer or at least post some URLs for further reading? I don't understand the problem with harnesses or what is happening in that video.
I read through Stack's full response. It looks thorough, but I'm still missing the original argument about this video. was it there something that should have been there that wasn't or something that was there that shouldn't have been? Maybe whoever comments on this next can give a full outline of both sides for me or share some URLs for further reading?
3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)
Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.
Bringing back some of the philosophical discussion, I think it worth asking you the same thing I asked Jack. What, if any evidence or observations would cause you to start believing NASA's expeditions really took place again?
4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)
But I would like to touch on the thermodynamic impossibilities relating to the infinite vacuum of space that @jack44556677 touched on [...]
So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.
5. The Conspiracy (MarkAntony and jack44556677)
I'll admit again I liked the way to flat earth wiki explained the conspiracy, and yes you and Jack make it sound significantly less implausible. This might be obvious to a lot of you, but the first couple paragraphs of the "Motive of the Conspiracy" section which says "There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy ... There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" was not at all what I expected, and sounded a lot less crazy then what I expected. And it's what lead me to want to focus on NASA, of course. Now another good reference for this topic is the "Number of conspirators involved" section of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories. So yes, after reading both of these I've concluded that I don't have as much evidence to back up my claim that the conspiracy is inherently impossible as I thought I did. I think we have to leave this specific point as a stalemate. The existence of a conspiracy has not been proven or disproven, simple as that. I think we should have enough evidence from specific expeditions (videos, moon rocks, etc.) to make those conclusions.
6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)
I'm also curious to hear someone's explanation for these.
7. Antarctica (Mark Antony and jack44556677)
the pictures of Antarctica you linked us are physically impossible to acquire. Just look at how the earth is illuminated - almost perfect uniform lighting over an entire hemisphere. This is not possible at any time of day. The complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth is another tell-tale sign.
Here's the image again for reference. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003402/index.html
Saying this image is physically impossible to acquire is quite a strong claim. Let's get into it.
7.1 Almost perfect uniform lighting
I don't have any specific references for this, but I think I've heard many times that NASA colorizes and in other ways modifies some of its images since the originals are not easy or even possible to see with the human eye. I'm not saying for sure that this image was modified, but just that it's possible. And of course, it being modified isn't evidence that it is fake.
7.2 complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth
For one thing, I see a lot of clouds in the images. And even if some areas lack clouds in the images (like the American Midwest), what does that prove? You're saying that you know for a fact that on that particular day there were large visible clouds in the spot visible from space, but NASA's images suspiciously don't show those clouds? I'm not sure if I'm following your logic or not.
In conclusion about this image, I believe it's a stalemate. I don't think it's possible to prove these images are real or fake, so I don't think they stand as evidence in either direction. Again, I think we have better evidence to go on.
8. Just some discussion
I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread. Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy, that's the only topic logically necessary. And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!
There are people who beleive in the NASA conspiracy but still don't believe in FET. So it can be discussed in isolation of FET. This is in line with the FET wiki, which states that NASA believes the world is a globe so that is how it presents it. I'd wager that if FET was somehow disproven independently of NASA, a lot of former FET believers would continue to be NASA conspiracy believers since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.
-
I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread. Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy, that's the only topic logically necessary. And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!
There are people who beleive in the NASA conspiracy but still don't believe in FET. So it can be discussed in isolation of FET. This is in line with the FET wiki, which states that NASA believes the world is a globe so that is how it presents it. I'd wager that if FET was somehow disproven independently of NASA, a lot of former FET believers would continue to be NASA conspiracy believers since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.
You’re right, they are independent, but they are also very much related. This may be a bit naive on my part, but, a lot of what I see/read along with FET is the dismissal of empirical science and other forms of evidence such as photographs and videos. I get it. It can be hard to comprehend something you can’t necessarily touch or see or verify for yourself. Clearly it’s not possible for a regular citizen to go into space or just cross the Antarctic, so it’s easy to just dismiss photos and videos of the Earth as faked because nobody can really prove or disprove it. They have to be taken at face value. If somebody comes forward and says they are from NASA and they spent time at the space station, seeing the Earth as a sphere with their own eyes, nobody believes them so it’s a lose-lose situation.
The fact remains though that rockets exist, the space shuttle existed, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes launch out of sight above the Earth’s atmosphere from Florida. Can I say for sure it went into orbit high enough above the planet to photograph it as we have been shown? No, of course not, but one must ask the question - why would they send something up into the sky, do nothing with it or hide it for several days, then return it to Earth with fake photos and video footage onboard? Look at the recent dragon launch, getting two American’s on board the space station. Again, plenty of live video footage, onboard and outside of the module, with the round Earth in the background. Not only that, but when you looked into the night sky at the right time as predicted by the launch trajectory, you could see the “spot of light” moving exactly as predicted. With a telescope or good binoculars you can see the space station with your own eyes. This is a man-made satellite, not something that is part of the celestial dome/firmament. Why would stuff like that be faked by NASA and other space agencies? Surely, if it were being faked, it would only be for one of two reasons:
- NASA believe the Earth is round and don’t want to look stupid
- NASA are trying to convince everybody that the Earth is round
Again, maybe I’m being naive, but the simplest explanation is that the Earth is indeed round, and the experiments/exploration that NASA carries out just confirm that.
But yes, it is an independent belief, but also one that is intrinsically related to belief in flat Earth as well. That somebody would still disbelieve NASA even if the round Earth was undeniably proven is probably true.
-
The fact remains though that rockets exist, the space shuttle existed, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes launch out of sight above the Earth’s atmosphere from Florida. Can I say for sure it went into orbit high enough above the planet to photograph it as we have been shown? No, of course not, but one must ask the question - why would they send something up into the sky, do nothing with it or hide it for several days, then return it to Earth with fake photos and video footage onboard? Look at the recent dragon launch, getting two American’s on board the space station. Again, plenty of live video footage, onboard and outside of the module, with the round Earth in the background. Not only that, but when you looked into the night sky at the right time as predicted by the launch trajectory, you could see the “spot of light” moving exactly as predicted. With a telescope or good binoculars you can see the space station with your own eyes. This is a man-made satellite, not something that is part of the celestial dome/firmament. Why would stuff like that be faked by NASA and other space agencies?
Thanks for sharing this. Surely we can agree that pics and videos can be faked. But the fact that we can see the ISS through a telescope? I think that might belong in the list of "3rd party evidence for NASA's expeditions", and I'm really curious to hear the rebuttal.
-
Thanks for sharing this. Surely we can agree that pics and videos can be faked. But the fact that we can see the ISS through a telescope? I think that might belong in the list of "3rd party evidence for NASA's expeditions", and I'm really curious to hear the rebuttal.
Well, the thread is supposed to be in relation to the burden of proof. I don’t need to prove that I’ve seen, with my own eyes, the space shuttle launch from Cape Kennedy out of visible view from the surface of the Earth. Plenty of citizens of Earth have seen the same. Can I, or any other citizen prove it went into space and orbited the Earth? No. But if somebody is going to tell me that it didn’t go into space and orbit the Earth, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate what actually happened instead. Same with photos and videos from space. It’s easy to say you don’t believe something, but it’s a pointless statement in the absence of reason, which comes down to the NASA conspiracy. Why would they even bother to fake it?
But heres the thing, the burden of proof extends to more than just the NASA conspiracy. It extends to the whole of the flat Earth theory. We have two millennia of evolved science and empirical observation that fully supports and validates the rotating globe model. Even if you take NASA and their “fake photos” out of the equation, there is still enough evidence to support the globe model, because that model accurately shows, and predicts, everything that we observe in reality. That a lot of the flat Earth community chooses to reject this evidence is fine, but, just like with NASA, the burden of proof is on them to reason why the evidence as presented is incorrect and provide alternative explanations.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some elegant equivalence theories presented, and it’s actually enlightened me, but equally there are gaping holes that confuse me.
-
I'm sorry if I'm being rudely dismissive of your points. I'm trying to juggle including your talking points while also maintaining the structure of my argument. I'm trying to be selective about which evidence I present. I definitely appreciate your thoughts though and hope you stay a part of the conversation :)
It sounds like you're coming in with a very similar mindset as I did. That's why I came in with "burden of proof" as my central point. Once I started to realize how much FET critically depended on the NASA conspiracy, I realized that the "burden of proof" argument might not even be necessary! I'm wagering at this point that even if we have the burden of proof, we can still prove that NASA's expeditions were real. That's where I stand for now, at least.
The FET wiki claims that NASA's spaceships simply go up and out of view in the atmosphere, but not into "space". That's entirely consistent with what your eyes saw (but not your telescope!?). And it's not crazy or entirely unreasonable to believe that pics or vids can be faked with today's technology. In fact, with paranoia about deep fakes and all that, I actually sympathize with this perspective.
I agree with your second point that globe theory is 100% consistent with our observations of nature. I'm just at a point, after discussing this stuff at length with Jack, that I think the most powerful approach is to prove NASA's expeditions truly took place. FET researchers are working hard to develop an alternate theory to describe our observations of reality based on the flat earth model, and I honestly find their work fascinating even if I don't believe it.
If anyone can get me to a point where I have a logical reason to question NASA's expeditions, FET would become more than just fun reading. It becomes an actual logical possibility.
So I'm not completely opposed to your points! I just have a feeling that FET researchers are fatigued from the endless debates they must have. So I'm trying hard to keep my argument (and this thread) succinct, that's all.
-
I'm sorry if I'm being rudely dismissive of your points. I'm trying to juggle including your talking points while also maintaining the structure of my argument. I'm trying to be selective about which evidence I present. I definitely appreciate your thoughts though and hope you stay a part of the conversation :)
You’re not being rude or dismissive at all mate, and even if you were to disagree and tell me I’m wrong or whatever, that’s fine as long as it’s done with respect and decency. I’ve been told I’m ignorant and uneducated plenty already, and find it rather hypocritical given the subject matter.
But, I have to say I like your approach. It certainly does feel to me, and you seem to agree, that the flat Earth theory is contingent on the photographic and video evidence NASA provides from its expeditions as being faked. But, even if it’s proven beyond any doubt that the NASA expeditions took place, this might satisfy some flat Earth supporters, but what about those who still don’t believe the photos and video footage generated from those expeditions represent a globe? Will it still be an ongoing case of light does this, diffraction does that and gives the effect of the other? It then just becomes another page on the Wiki that concludes from the observations made in accordance with Zetetic Inquiry, and the flat Earth model continues.
I know I sound sceptical, because I am. But that’s why I’m here, because I’m curious, as is human nature, and want to better understand what flat Earth theory is all about rather than just outright say it’s stupid and that people who believe it are idiots. That doesn’t achieve anything. But, I’m a also man of science and evidence-based experimentation. As we agree, we do have a model which 100% works in every scenario and can be programmed into a computer simulation with simple known laws, and no matter where you place the camera on or over Earth, you see what we would see with our own eyes. This is currently impossible with any flat Earth model, hence my views on where the burden of proof lies.
-
Firstly, I realize I was hypocritical to dismiss all video evidence outright when I used water wringing and pre-CGI videos posted by others in my points above. But at least, in that case, specific videos were used, which is probably one of the standards we should follow rather than referencing videos and pictures in a generic way.
what about those who still don’t believe the photos and video footage generated from those expeditions represent a globe
You're right, some people always will stick to their gut feeling even when all evidence contradicts it. This is true on both sides. If it turned out that NASA was lying and suddenly the science starts to show that FET is the more likely theory, many people would stick with globe theory against all logic. That's human nature.
So I didn't come here to try to convince anyone to change their views. I think it's more important to focus on questioning my own views and challenging my own biases.
Right now the conversation is mostly still at the stage where both sides are presenting evidence. I hope that once we've accumulated enough evidence we can all go deeper into the psychological/philosophical reasons why each side interprets the evidence differently. I don't like that FET characterizes the majority of people as indoctrinated into a "globe theory faith" and I equally dislike that the majority considers FET a "cult". I want both sides to gain respect for each other. But I'm personally not really ready for that whole rant yet. I still know very little about both sides compared to many members of this forum. I'm just trying to gather what I see as crucial information (and the most valuable information will be responses that NASA conspiracy believers have to my 8 points from a few posts ago!)
-
@james38
I enjoy reading it and find a lot of what you are saying agreeable.
I'm glad you feel that way!
like Wittgenstein said
All I really know about him is he was a beery swine. Did I miss a good one?
We still should attempt to agree on working definitions for words.
I agree that is critical for effective communication (or at least the shot at it).
I say "My beliefs are determined by my knowledge/facts".
And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)! I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace. I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded. It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view" is indefensible. I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.
but that the conversation becomes convoluted and off-topic if we push our own exact definitions of words.
I find the issue central to the topic, and shared definitions are critical. The verbiage of belief is often invoked unbeknownst to the speaker, and I find this commonplace, meaningful, and often earnest - even when it is not explicitly/consciously intended that way. I try to avoid being a pedant whenever possible - I earnestly feel this point is important and noteworthy.
If I understand correctly, you mean the scientific method
I do not! The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of material things. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can determine an objects shape with certainty.
I'll backtrack and just say I don't think he's relevant or plays a role in my belief in the world's shape.
Again I am compelled, for demonstration - ideally, to point out the verbiage of belief where it does not belong. Although I do know how you meant this, the statement is true, earnest, and valid in more ways than I suspect you realize. Pythagoras had a LOT to do with your BELIEF in the worlds shape.
but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence today.
Absolutely! However, much of that evidence, today as always - hails from the ancient greeks!
To be honest, on a philosophical level I think we are mostly on the same page.
It does seem that way! This is encouraging.
What do you think about south pole, like the literal one that people can visit as well as the scientific research labs scattered around Antarctica?
I know that the token barbershop pole is only for the tourists.
I am not convinced there is a "south pole" at all. The earth could be more like a ring magnet, and have a south pole that encircles the north.
I don't have much doubt that there are research and military bases there. Herzog wouldn't straight up lie to me like that.
But let's focus on the evidence...
And the distinct lack thereof - depending!
Believing in "the conspiracy" (faked space expeditions) seems less absurd to me than it used to!
I have found that an objective evaluation of the evidence leads to one obvious conclusion. It's that objectivity that is the tricky bit. When validating a claim/evidence subjectively with presumptive bias, as a "debunker" does - for instance, you will essentially always be able to "discover" the "explanation". Cognitive dissonance all but assures it.
Do you deny this?
Firstly, radiometric dating methods, essentially, do not work. You cannot date a rock by itself. The most reliable dating method in archeology is pottery.
From what little independent testing has been done on "moonrocks" we can and have easily determined they are terrestrial in origin and composition (and in one of the nordic countries, the one given to them by an apollo astronot personally, it turned out to be petrified wood)
There is a real possibility that the moon is not tangible/physical, and almost certainly not made of rock.
1. "space" violates natural laws: please be more specific
Absolutely. Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fundamental behavior of gas. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the notion that there is one of, effectively, infinite size above our heads is both offensively stupid and unscientific. Nequaquam vacuum.
2. notable whistleblowers/critics wound up murdered: who?
It's in the wiki! Perhaps the best well known is thomas baron, who is in the wiki.
3. faked footage: show me?
Perhaps the most quintessential/obvious is the rat on "mars". Let me know if you have trouble finding it!
It's interesting hearing your biases.
My biases were what led me to be fooled that the footage on the tv was genuine. It is through the identification and eradication of biases that we make progress in this subject and in seeing the world as it is!
In my opinion, these views are extreme. I'll leave it at that.
Recognizing that governments and militaries routinely lie to their people (and some of the reasons why) is hardly a radical view. It is a basic historical and contemporary fact, which most people know and accept. Further recognizing that corporations/industry does the same thing for the same reason does not take a rocket scientist, nor any sort of "extremism".
I'm intrigued by the convex experiments you've been talking about.
I was talking about measurements, not experiments. Experiment is not an ordinary word, it is technical vernacular with a rigorous and inflexible definition. An experiment is a test that validates or invalidates (or neither) a hypothesis by establishing, ideally, a causal link between the IV/hypothesized cause and DV/hypothesized effect. Nothing else is an experiment. Mere observations are never experiments, and students are mistaught in his regard (the cavendish, eratosthenes, bedford level "experiments" are all just observations)
Why is this?
I suspect because it is a distraction, but this is a question for the wiki authors. I do not claim that it is perfect, but considering how difficult it is to consolidate all the disparate and often conflicting views of individual (largely) researchers AND keep it intelligible/consumable is no small feat! I am very impressed with it and look forward to its continued refinement - of which your discovery may be a part.
So do you see your frozen lake experiment as being a continuation of these studies?
Absolutely (though it is in no way an experiment, nor is it mine), and the frozen lake is significantly superior to other locales. Remove the uncertainty of atmospheric/optical effects by changing methods and one might argue they had "proof" that the globe is fantasy.
And do the articles I linked above perhaps miss any other experiments that have been conducted since then?
Of course. Some that spring to mind are the rectilineator (for measuring straight against level) and various contemporary observations by independent researchers. Measuring the presumed curvature of water has never been done by anyone, ever - and this is significant in empirical science - which requires measurement....
P.S.
I see that I am behind in my responses! Please have patience, I will respond as I can.
-
@fisherman
I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.
Its disingenuous to invoke hydrostatic law in your argument, when hydrostatics specifically account for the influence of gravity.
The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation/measurement. This is unscientific and most likely scientific fraud as well. Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement. This is a hard requirement in science - as it always has been - and is non-negotiable.
@ronj
We'll have to go into that further in another thread, I think. It is intriguing!
@RhesusVX
However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.
That stuff is just gravy. The meat is scientific observation and analysis. A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject. It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.
-
The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation/measurement. This is unscientific and most likely scientific fraud as well. Natural law MUST be established b (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement. This is a hard requirement in science - as it always has been - and is non-negotiable.
The equation just reflects the law that hydrostatic equilibrium means that pressure at any point in a fluid at rest is due to the weight of the overlying fluid.
If you think the equation is wrong, then it follows that you believe that the law is invalid and can't legitimately appeal to it for your argument.
-
@fisherman
You don't seem to be following.
Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement. This is a hard requirement in science
There is no way around this point. The equations were changed without validation - this is unacceptable/unscientific and likely scientific fraud to boot. Natural law stands until refuted by contrary measurement. No contrary measurement (measurement of the presumed/calculated curvature unscientifically/illegitimately injected into the equations) exists, has existed in the past, or likely will in the future (as it would be a violation of existing hydrostatic law, unchallenged for centuries). The equations you are referencing are unscientific and bunk.
-
There is no way around this point. The equations were changed without validation - this is unacceptable/unscientific and likely scientific fraud to boot.
What formula was ever changed?
The hydrostatic law of equilibrium, which governs a liquid at rest simply states pressure at any point in a fluid at rest is just due to the weight of the overlying fluid. A formula was developed to reflect that. It is P = g ρ h, with g is gravity, ρ is density, and h the height.
If you don't think that is the correct formula, then what should it be?
-
@fisherman
What formula was ever changed?
The one that describes a fictional non-real "force" of gravity in its description/calculation/formulation of the, equally non-real, presumed curvature of waters surface at rest.
Roughly, at some point in the late 18th to 19th centuries the existing validated equations (natural law) describing the shape of water's surface at rest were surreptitiously changed to have the fictional "force" of "gravity" added into the equations without any validation or empirical science whatsoever. This is unscientific, and likely fraud as well. Natural law is not speculative, nor theoretical. It is practical, demonstrable, and rigorously/repeatedly measured - this is not up for debate.
A formula was developed to reflect that. It is P = g ρ h, with g is gravity, ρ is density, and h the height.
This equation has 2 fictional terms in it that were never validated. It is an abuse/corruption of pascals law - which is correct (and includes no fictional terms). This is not really a discussion about that though... In any case, weight density is all that is used in the corrected equation. M and g are fiction - they return to the weight they began and were measured as.
If you don't think that is the correct formula, then what should it be?
For pascals law, which we aren't really discussing - see below.
P=Dw*h (where Dw is ; Density, weight)
-
For pascals law, which we aren't really discussing - see below.
P=Dw*h (where Dw is ; Density, weight)
I hate to break it to you, but any formula that include weight, takes gravity into account as w=mg.
So exactly which law of hydrostatics are you referring to when you say that water can't curve?
-
And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)! I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace. I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded. It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view" is indefensible. I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.
I find the issue central to the topic, and shared definitions are critical. The verbiage of belief is often invoked unbeknownst to the speaker, and I find this commonplace, meaningful, and often earnest - even when it is not explicitly/consciously intended that way. I try to avoid being a pedant whenever possible - I earnestly feel this point is important and noteworthy.
Again I am compelled, for demonstration - ideally, to point out the verbiage of belief where it does not belong. Although I do know how you meant this, the statement is true, earnest, and valid in more ways than I suspect you realize. Pythagoras had a LOT to do with your BELIEF in the worlds shape.
I will concede to strictly trying to use your definition of the word belief as long as it gets us on the same page. By your definition, I don't believe in anything since I'm an atheist? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of material things. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can determine an objects shape with certainty.
The scientific method can be used to test a hypothesis related to the shape of an object. For example, I can posit an object in my hand is spherical. I can attempt to roll it across the floor. Null hypothesis: it will not roll. If it rolls, I failed to disprove that it is spherical.
Measurement can determine an object's precise dimensions and shape.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Measurements can be used in scientific experiments.
How does this point fit into your larger perspective, anyway?
I know that the token barbershop pole is only for the tourists.
I am not convinced there is a "south pole" at all. The earth could be more like a ring magnet, and have a south pole that encircles the north.
I don't have much doubt that there are research and military bases there. Herzog wouldn't straight up lie to me like that.
A ring is similar to a disk, right? I'm really curious how you visualize this (and I know its just an idea, you don't have to defend it I'm just curious). Is it like the world from Halo?
Firstly, radiometric dating methods, essentially, do not work
From what little independent testing has been done on "moonrocks" we can and have easily determined they are terrestrial in origin and composition
Can you please back up all your scientific claims? Just a URL or title of the article will do. Or if it's your own independent research, that's great. As long as you can fully back it up. Specifically, can you back up that 1. radiometric dating does not work and 2. moon rocks are terrestrial in origin.
I also need to explain a bit more where I am coming from with the moon rocks. There's nothing inconsistent about the fact that they are terrestrial in origin if that is what studies found. The most prominent theory of the moon's origin is that it was created when another object collided with the Earth billions of years ago. That's not the point.
The point is that NASA presented the scientific community with a bunch of rocks, and the experiments by 3rd party researchers found evidence that is consistent with them being moon rocks. My main specific reference at this point is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703773901907?via%3Dihub
In short, Laul and Schmitt from the Oregon State University of Corvallis found that rocks provided from both NASA and the soviet Luna sample return missions where "nearly identical in chemical composition". This in conjunction with the dating is consistent with the posit that these rocks come from the moon. Also, the nearly identical composition between the Luna and NASA rocks would be hard to pull off if each agency was running its own independent conspiracy. This suggests the most likely scenarios are that there was a global conspiracy or that there was no conspiracy at all. And if we already agree that a global conspiracy it too unlikely to have taken place, this makes the most likely scenario that both missions truly went to the moon.
There is a real possibility that the moon is not tangible/physical, and almost certainly not made of rock.
That's a fun thought. Makes me want to read about moon gods.
Chief among [the natural laws that are violated by "space"] are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fundamental behavior of gas. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the notion that there is one of, effectively, infinite size above our heads is both offensively stupid and unscientific. Nequaquam vacuum.
Is this your full explanation or do you have any further readings to back this up?
"Natural abhors a vacuum"
You're an eloquent writer, more than I ever will be. But if you want to talk science, you have to speak plainly and precisely, even mathematically if possible. Vacuums are a well defined scientific concept. But saying that "nature abhors it" is giving me nothing tangible that I can work with. Seriously, if you want to have poetry writing contest you will win by a long shot since I have the creative writing skills of a middle schooler. Luckily, that's not exactly what I came here for.
Because nature is not capable of "abhorring" something, that's an example of a claim that is unfalsifiable. So where exactly is the logical contradiction between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the existence of space? I want to get into all of this.
[notable whistleblowers/critics who got murdered are] in the wiki! Perhaps the best well known is thomas baron, who is in the wiki.
Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to read through every reference in the wiki, which is why I'm at this forum to ask the pros such as yourself to handpick the best for me :)
So I read about Thomas Baron. Fascinating! I can't find any reason to doubt the legitimacy of his story. It's very suspicious and creepy for sure. That being said, there's a certain probability the whole thing was a coincidence. There's also a certain probability that he was truly murdered by big brother, but that the moon landings still took place. I would not doubt anyone for learning about this, causing them to keep digging. But I hope you can agree this in itself is not evidence that NASA's expeditions were faked. It's suspicious, but not a logical contradiction.
Perhaps the most quintessential/obvious [faked footage] is the rat on "mars". Let me know if you have trouble finding it!
I think I found it. Is this a good link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWrboPv4OYc&ab_channel=WhatsUpInTheSky37
Yeah, I see the rat! Or at least, the rock that looks like a rat. Is that it?
I hope we can agree at least at this point that you have no hard evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked. Though I am starting to understanding where these conspiracy theories might be stemming from. And I'm not saying "conspiracy theory" in a derogatory sense. I'm just saying that's what it is. It's simply not scientific fact that NASA lied about going on expeditions into space, even if you are suspicious. I think there's even evidence supporting their claim that they did go. But can we at least agree there is not hard evidence that they did not go?
My biases were what led me to be fooled that the footage on the tv was genuine. It is through the identification and eradication of biases that we make progress in this subject and in seeing the world as it is!
Recognizing that governments and militaries routinely lie to their people (and some of the reasons why) is hardly a radical view. It is a basic historical and contemporary fact, which most people know and accept. Further recognizing that corporations/industry does the same thing for the same reason does not take a rocket scientist, nor any sort of "extremism".
I don't disagree that governments and militaries routinely lie. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have called you biased or extreme without backing it up, and it was a tangential and purposeless remark anyway. I just wanted to reign in the conversation a bit. Again, I think we are more or less on the same page here. I don't want to blindly believe the government any more than you do. I was expressing a feeling when I said your perspective sounded biased and extreme and that's all it was. What I'm really here for is to discuss specific evidence and our methodologies for analyzing and interpreting such evidence.
I was talking about measurements, not experiments. Experiment is not an ordinary word, it is technical vernacular with a rigorous and inflexible definition. An experiment is a test that validates or invalidates (or neither) a hypothesis by establishing, ideally, a causal link between the IV/hypothesized cause and DV/hypothesized effect. Nothing else is an experiment. Mere observations are never experiments, and students are mistaught in his regard (the cavendish, eratosthenes, bedford level "experiments" are all just observations)
Ok, I'll try to use this definition for "experiment" moving forward.
Absolutely (though it is in no way an experiment, nor is it mine), and the frozen lake is significantly superior to other locales. Remove the uncertainty of atmospheric/optical effects by changing methods and one might argue they had "proof" that the globe is fantasy.
I think we can agree this measurement should be done. However, if you're ultimate goal is to measure the shape of the planet, wouldn't you agree it's not enough? What's to stop the crystal structure of ice or some other effect we aren't yet aware of from allowing a gigantic yet flat block of ice to float atop and the spherical world? Even if you have a perfect measreument of the frozen lake, that doesn't translate directly to the shape of the entire world.
There must be another measurement we can think of that measures the shape and dimensions of the world more directly. Here's a thought experiment (don't critique it based on if its realistically possible, its the principle that matters): What if we took a tape measure that was long enough to wrap the world. And with that tape measure we first encircled the polar region (which should show a relatively short measurement). Then we can work our way down to the equator (which should be relatively large). Now, once we go below the equator, we can both measure it and also make that measurement part of a hypothesis. I will hypothesize that when you measure the distance around the southern region (below the equator) it will become gradually shorter as you get further from the equator, and at the same rate that it gets gradually shorter as you approach the polar region. This would be consistent with globe theory and inconsistent with flat earth theory. But I'm not sure about your ring theory, which I need to hear more about. What do you think?
rectilineator
I did a bit of searching for this but couldn't find anything good. Any published research?
-
That stuff is just gravy. The meat is scientific observation and analysis. A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject. It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.
It is indeed, and I'm all for scientific observation and analysis. I've actually read a lot of your posts and I agree with @james38, you are incredibly eloquent in your writing style, sometimes overly so, to the point it can come across as like you are doing it on purpose in an attempt to confuse. However, you're a researcher, clearly educated, and it's actually refreshing to read compared to some of the nonsense I've read. I disagree on your insistence that we do not use the word belief, but then I disagree on a few things I've seen you write about. Belief does not just have meaning in relation to religion/mythology. That's just your opinion and chosen use of the word is it not? I can believe something to be true, like "I believe I left the light on downstairs". I don't know that because I'm not sure, but I can prove it by going downstairs and making an observation. Now I know that I left the light on.
For a man of such eloquence, I find it odd that you think that mass is not real and cannot be rigorously defined. Mass is just a quantity, an amount of "stuff". The unit is somewhat irrelevant. If you have 10 bowling balls, it doesn't matter where you take those bowling balls in the universe, you will still have 10 bowling balls. Doesn't matter if it's here on Earth, on the Moon, or the outer reaches of the galaxy. What does change is the thing we call weight, because weight is directly proportional to the amount of mass measured in gravity. Those 10 bowling balls will be heavier on Earth compared to the Moon for example. But, you also say that gravity is not real. So what is gravity then? If you are a man of science and are dismissing all of the accepted theories and laws that describe gravity and how objects behave in relation to each other, surely you must have your own alternatives that scientifically prove these facts? I mean, on the one hand you quote pascals law which fundamentally relies on such things, yet on the other you say mass and gravity are not real, which means weight isn't real either under that definition - indeed you say it's just an intrinsic property of matter. Yes it is, matter in gravity has weight.
Again, reading what you've put elsewhere about things at rest cannot be in constant acceleration because that violates the law of energy conservation. How? When you jump out of an aeroplane, for arguments sake let's just say you fall down towards the Earth (or it rises up to you) at a rate of 9.81m/s^2. At this point you have an amount of kinetic energy. When you finally meet the Earth, you stop (and probably die!). You are no longer in motion because the Earth's surface is stopping you - you now have potential energy. The Earth is, in effect, pushing up towards you with the equivalent force, thus you feel weight, thus preserving the law of energy conservation. I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that concept.
The thing about a vacuum being abhorrent in nature is also extremely bizarre. I am going to assume that you do know the difference between what we call the vacuum of space, and what we call suction. Only reason I say this is because plenty of people don't, and they assume that the vacuum of space would suck away our atmosphere just like our vacuum cleaner sucks up dust from our carpet. Suction is a consequence of creating a vacuum in the presence of an atmosphere, and is actually a pushing force. I'm sure you knew, apologies, but others may not. Anyway, if the notion of an infinite vacuum above our heads is offensively stupid and unscientific, what wouldn't be stupid and more scientific? I know you conclude that the Earth cannot be a sphere. What I'm not sure about is if you subscribe to the flat Earth theory that we are constantly accelerating upwards to account for what we call gravity. If you do, and we are, one of two things are needed for us to have air to breath:
1. A dome to contain it, or
2. An infinite column of air above us
Both sound offensively stupid to me, but then that's why I'm here - to learn more about flat Earth theory and how best to approach it. I know an alternative flat Earth theory has been put forward that we are not accelerating upwards, but instead we have an infinitely large flat disc with finite gravity. Again, that sounds offensively stupid to me, but the same reasoning applies in my view.
On the more relevant topic of proof, and the shape of the Earth, I have three direct observations made by myself that require little to no complex science or understanding:
1. Reproduction of Eratosthenes experiment - shadows of different lengths in different parts of the Earth at the same time (was surprisingly accurate!)
2. A friend of mine has a small boat, and we often sail out on a river that just happens to head towards, and past, a tall radio mast. The mast appears from the top down.
3. The reverse of 2, viewing a cruise ship sailing out to sea. It clearly disappears from the bottom up.
I know, these might be considered clichés, but these aren't some observations I've read about and taken as blind faith. I've seen them myself, and repeated with friends. I can therefore conclude from these findings that the Earth cannot be flat, and must be one of the following shapes:
A. Sphere-like
B. Ovoid-like
C. Disc-like (where we live on the outer edge)
D. Ring-like (where we live on the outer edge)
E. Cylinder-like (where we live on the outer edge)
The fact that multiple people all over the Earth experience 2 and 3 quite routinely no matter what their location or direction of travel means that either A or B can be the only logical explanation. With millennia of additional scientific observation, exploration, surveillance, aerial photography and space exploration on top of that, I have no reason to posit that the Earth is anything but A. Whether it is or isn't, whether NASA are lying or not, life will just go on as it is anyway so it's all a bit moot really! I'll leave it at that for now because loads of different things are getting discussed and debated at once now and is getting hard enough to follow as it is.
Appreciate your input, it's genuinely fascinating.
Edit:
I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.
This experiment?
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment (http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment)
The experiment that proves the Earth is curved so gets disregarded because it doesn't fit the flat Earth narrative? I'd love to know why you find the methodology flawed, because from what I can see:
- The experiment was carried out on a frozen lake, so the surface was ice. Ice is water.
- Every effort was made to make sure points of reference were made at the same elevation.
- Every effort was made to reduce the effects of refraction caused by the cold surface and density gradient.
- All of the numbers, calculations, laws of refraction, observations and reasoning are provided.
All this does is one thing - prove that the Earth's surface curves, and it correlates with my own observations as well. At the very least it means it's not flat.
-
This thread needs to stay civil and friendly, in accordance with the forum rules: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0 . Interestingly, it looks like this website has a specific forum for ranting (the Angry Ranting thread). I want this thread to be the opposite of that. I want us to all try to respect each other's views. Like I've said, I dislike how some in the majority considers FET a cult and I equally dislike how some in FET consider globe earth theory a "faith". I actually have a high amount of respect for FET researchers because of the courage they have to exercise their right to free thought, as well as their rigorous pursuit of truth free from societal bias. I think its pointless and sad for us to insult each other's intelligence. That will get us nowhere.
It's arguably a personal attack to call the other's views "offensively stupid". Both sides have done it in the last few posts, and I really dislike it and find it counterproductive. I understand how emotions can start to rise. Obviously, this conversation will get frustrating at certain points. But we all need to take a deep breath before we write our responses and not use this thread to blow off steam. And I'm not saying I've been perfect either. I also regret some of the offensive things I have said. I'm asking everyone to stay patient with each other. Focus on the common ground, and then let's work out exactly where our lines of reasoning diverge.
-
Well said james38, and I agree, I have a new found respect for those who support FET. There is a lot of thought put into the equivalence theories and things that show there is more than one way to skin a cat (awful saying, but hey ho!). The “offensive stupid” thing wasn’t a direction at anyone, just repeating back what I’ve seen written because I actually believed the very statement itself to be the same.
Regarding the whole thing being a cult, I guess it could be considered offensive, but if you consider a cult just being a group of individuals who share a common commitment to a particular ideology, it’s not so derogatory really. I think where it starts to become derogatory is when FET supporters go out of their way to simply state that RET supporters are wrong and that we have all been fed lies, yet provide no rationale. That’s when some in the majority will consider FET a cult.
It’s interesting because I don’t consider RET as a cult or faith either. For most people, it’s just accepted as being what it is, part of daily life and background noise. We don’t necessarily go around attesting that the Earth is a globe. The fact that people do so only happens because of FET, which again could fuel people into looking at it as a cult. I know the opposites could apply here, but I think you get my point.
The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge. I’m not saying I have all of the answers either, not at all. But, when somebody just says to me, “Earth can’t be round because water would fall off the bottom” or “Earth can’t be spinning because water would fly off”, it just shows a level of ignorance and complete lack of understanding or willingness to understand, even if they ultimately don’t subscribe to the idea. This is what I’m trying to do - understand, and part of that will be by challenging things. I just need to follow some of my own advice as well along the journey.
-
In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.
In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7dISGGxLRk
The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.
Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/7edKRB8.jpg)
Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:
(https://i.imgur.com/vMtaYWp.gif)
Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.
This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.
There is no visible wire in this clip. The wires are edited out using software. There are other videos where they simply forgot to edit the harnesses out altogether. I can pull these up if you like, a google search should do. My point is that you can clearly see the astronaut on the right pull something that is physically attached to the astronaut on the left in order to bring him under control after his somersault. Also, look how ridiculous Sandy's hair looks. This is not how you would expect hair to behave in space. It should have a more fluid out of control behavior as it would in water. This is just blatantly gelled upwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPvdNbftOY
How would they fake this effect?
That is very impressive CGI and nothing more. No astronaut would be wreckless enough to let water splash everywhere out of control like this. It contradicts instructional videos they did previously on how to brush your teeth in space where they were being very careful about water use, swallowing their toothpaste for example and not washing their hair for extended periods (or not at all).
So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.
The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.
So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!
None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!
The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.
-
In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.
In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7dISGGxLRk
The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.
Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:
(https://i.imgur.com/7edKRB8.jpg)
Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:
(https://i.imgur.com/vMtaYWp.gif)
Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.
This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.
There is no visible wire in this clip. The wires are edited out using software. There are other videos where they simply forgot to edit the harnesses out altogether. I can pull these up if you like, a google search should do. My point is that you can clearly see the astronaut on the right pull something that is physically attached to the astronaut on the left in order to bring him under control after his somersault. Also, look how ridiculous Sandy's hair looks. This is not how you would expect hair to behave in space. It should have a more fluid out of control behavior as it would in water. This is just blatantly gelled upwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFPvdNbftOY
How would they fake this effect?
That is very impressive CGI and nothing more. No astronaut would be wreckless enough to let water splash everywhere out of control like this. It contradicts instructional videos they did previously on how to brush your teeth in space where they were being very careful about water use, swallowing their toothpaste for example and not washing their hair for extended periods (or not at all).
So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.
The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.
So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!
None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!
The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.
I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.
-
I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.
Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.
-
I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.
Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.
There's a lot more to it than what you mentioned. Without the complete picture it's hard to really examine how some of these things work, especially give the complexity involved. For instance, oxygenation, decompression/depressurization, in regard to capsules and spacesuits is quite complex, with a tremendous amount of preparation involved in order to prevent some of the harmful outcomes you bring up. Here's some of the Apollo prep:
The cabin atmosphere at launch was adjusted to 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at sea-level pressure: 14.7 psi (101 kPa). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (34 kPa), releasing approximately 2/3 of the gas originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi (34 kPa) as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% oxygen), so the nitrogen concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% oxygen, it still contained almost three times the amount of oxygen present in ordinary sea level air (20.9% oxygen). This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets after reaching orbit. (60% of five psi is three psi, compared to 60% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 8.8 psi (61 kPa) at launch, and 20.9% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 3.07 psi (21.2 kPa) in sea-level air.)[63]
The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the nitrogen had been purged from the astronauts' tissues before launch. They would still breathe pure oxygen, starting several hours before launch, until they removed their helmets on orbit. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.
As for flexibility in Apollo space suits:
When pressurized, the differential pressures Impose stress or tension on the suit wall. The "soft" suit becomes very rigid or stiff, and almost impossible to bend except in those areas where specially designed joints are provided to accommodate normal body flexure. An example of this stiffness: inflate a large cylindrical balloon or the inner tube of a tire, the balloon or tube will become very stilt and almost Impossible to twist or bend. Without these specially developed joints for the space suit, It would be virtually impossible for the astronaut to do useful work on the moon's surface.
These special joints are installed Into the CMP A7LB suit at the knees, wrist, shoulders, elbows, ankles, and thighs. The EV A7LB suit was further modified to include special joints at the neck and waist to allow bending movements in those areas. This added suit flexibility permits the astronaut to conserve his energy, reduce fatigue and to work for longer periods on the lunar surface.
As for hair, I'm not sure how gel could replicate this movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lPU0nYb3s&feature=emb_title
-
@Stack
Thanks for the info. If you could post the links from where you get it from, that would be helpful.
@Mark Antony
The claim that the videos involve CGI or hair gel is speculation as to possible explanations for how they could have faked it. Stack seemed to debunk the hair gel theory with his useful video of an astronaut washing her hair. In any case, I think we can both agree that you are merely explaining your version of how these videos could have been created but not providing any hard evidence that these videos are fake.
EDIT: I do see your point about the invisible harness, however. After rewatching a bunch of times I still can't figure out what the guy is grabbing. Very curious if Stack or anyone else has thoughts on this. Also definitely would love to see the other videos you mentioned with the harnesses.
Onto the spacesuit.
The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.
So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!
None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!
There's a lot more to it than what you mentioned. Without the complete picture it's hard to really examine how some of these things work, especially give the complexity involved. For instance, oxygenation, decompression/depressurization, in regard to capsules and spacesuits is quite complex, with a tremendous amount of preparation involved in order to prevent some of the harmful outcomes you bring up. Here's some of the Apollo prep:
The cabin atmosphere at launch was adjusted to 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at sea-level pressure: 14.7 psi (101 kPa). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (34 kPa), releasing approximately 2/3 of the gas originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi (34 kPa) as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% oxygen), so the nitrogen concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% oxygen, it still contained almost three times the amount of oxygen present in ordinary sea level air (20.9% oxygen). This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets after reaching orbit. (60% of five psi is three psi, compared to 60% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 8.8 psi (61 kPa) at launch, and 20.9% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 3.07 psi (21.2 kPa) in sea-level air.)[63]
The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the nitrogen had been purged from the astronauts' tissues before launch. They would still breathe pure oxygen, starting several hours before launch, until they removed their helmets on orbit. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.
As for flexibility in Apollo space suits:
When pressurized, the differential pressures Impose stress or tension on the suit wall. The "soft" suit becomes very rigid or stiff, and almost impossible to bend except in those areas where specially designed joints are provided to accommodate normal body flexure. An example of this stiffness: inflate a large cylindrical balloon or the inner tube of a tire, the balloon or tube will become very stilt and almost Impossible to twist or bend. Without these specially developed joints for the space suit, It would be virtually impossible for the astronaut to do useful work on the moon's surface.
These special joints are installed Into the CMP A7LB suit at the knees, wrist, shoulders, elbows, ankles, and thighs. The EV A7LB suit was further modified to include special joints at the neck and waist to allow bending movements in those areas. This added suit flexibility permits the astronaut to conserve his energy, reduce fatigue and to work for longer periods on the lunar surface.
So thanks Mark Antony for providing some detailed info and arguments we can attempt to debunk and Stack for providing more info. I'm going to try to break this all down and paraphrase your arguments, please let me know if I'm putting up a straw man.
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.
Thanks for going into so much depth. And I understand and agree it's a huge engineering challenge. Nobody doubts that what NASA was doing was difficult. But, difficulty alone is not strong enough evidence as I'm sure you know. And you seem to accept that NASA's current explanation (the hinges in the suit) are a perfectly logical explanation for how the suits can maneuver. And Stack explained these hinges in more detail.
So if I understand correctly, you're only real concern is that the hinges/joints weren't explained until after the Apollo missions. I did a very quick bit of research on this by searching the wikipedia page on the specific space suit model used in the Apollo missions. You can see it here https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Apollo/Skylab_space_suit . On this page, just do a search for "joint" and you will see the explanation for it.
Do you deny that this wikipedia page explains the joints on an Apollo-era spacesuit, and if so where is your contradicting evidence?
Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.
Interesting! This should be a killer argument if it holds up. It would have been helpful to know where Stack's info came from since that's my main reference for now, but since he called it "Apollo prep" I'm assuming it comes from the Apollo era which contradicts your second point that this stuff wasn't taken into account during the Apollo missions. Seem's like we'd have to wait for Stack to provide a reference to where this comes from or for Mark Antony to deny it as legitimate?
Normal air has approximately 21% oxygen (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-oxygen-in-air?share=1). However, I'm having trouble finding a reference for how much oxygen causes hyperoxia, and after how much time. Can you please share your reference?
Specifically, you said:
To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes"
I have no idea if the part about hyperoxia is accurate or not. I found one reference saying it takes hours. This would contradict your point that it takes minutes, but I won't link it because I'm not sure if it is credible and it didn't specify the percent oxygen that causes hyperoxia.
Stack's information seems to confirm that the astronauts breathed pure (100%)? oxygen for extended periods. I'm confused about this because if what Mark Antony is saying about hyperoxia is correct, there does seem to be a contradiction here and all astronauts should be dead from hyperoxia. Anyone?
The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.
In conclusion, it seems most of your points were disproven above. The hyperoxia argument (EDIT: and the invisible harnesses) seems to be the only one that could still hold up, but we're lacking complete information about it.
-
Apollo space suit construction/flexibility (About a 1/3 of the way through the document, no page numbers):
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/SignificantIncidentsEVA/assets/space_suit_evolution.pdf
Apollo capsule/suit oxygen preparation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Pure_oxygen_atmosphere
-
Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.
Well you seem to think space suits are depressurised to just 5-6 KPa, or are you going to claim that’s just a typo now as you frantically copied the wrong numbers and units out of a quick Google search? I’m also really not sure what knowledge we need to challenge what you’ve said. The videos of astronauts on board exist, the photos of the Earth from space exist. Retroreflectors are on the surface of the Moon so that laser light can be bounced back to Earth. How did they get there? If you think it’s all conspiracy and fake, per the thread, the burden is on you to provide actual evidence that they are fake, not just your own interpretation of how they could be faked based on your own limited knowledge. On top of that, why would they fake it all? What purpose does it serve? You’re happy to use sat nav and other things that rely on satellites orbiting the Earth, but aren’t willing to accept we’ve been into space. Or do you think sat nav works some other way than what we’ve been told?
Regarding the video, I too can’t really see what is supposedly being grabbed at, other than one astronaut reaching out to stabilise his colleague. Not the first one I’ve seen where people claim that wires and harnesses were used but have no actual proof of the fact. Thing is, when you think that something is true, like the Earth being flat, and something comes along that absolutely proves that it’s not, the easiest thing to do is just dismiss it and say it’s all conspiracy and fake. Never mind that all the photos and videos from space do is confirm what people have worked out for over 2,500 years. Humanity has already provided its proof. It’s up to the Flat Earth Society and its supporters to provide counter-evidence that videos are fake, photos are fake, curvature tests are flawed, and that all known laws of science and motion in relation to Earth and its surroundings are all wrong.
-
In conclusion, it seems most of your points were disproven above. The hyperoxia argument (EDIT: and the invisible harnesses) seems to be the only one that could still hold up, but we're lacking complete information about it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430743/#_article-26493_s2_
Hyperoxia effects set in about 24 hours after beginning breathing pure oxygen, not minutes.
The trigger for hyperoxia is too high a partial pressure of oxygen. We breathe air that is approximately one fifth oxygen and approximately 15psi pressure, so the partial pressure of oxygen in the air is one fifth of atmospheric pressure, or approximately 3psi. If we instead breathe pure oxygen at 3psi, say, in a decompression chamber, the partial pressure of oxygen would be 3psi and it wouldn’t harm us.
Astronauts breathing pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure a couple of hours before launch are not going to suffer, nor would a working pressure of 5psi pure oxygen (the actual pressure used) in the Apollo capsule for a week’s mission kill them with hyperoxia. This also means the capsule has to contain a 5psi atmosphere, not a 15psi one, so the pressure loading is less.
-
When it comes to the burden of proof, I'd remind all that just one single photo or video taken from outer space proves it exists and we're able to reach it. I've previously provided an example of the video of Chris Hadfield doing experiments on demand, wringing a water-soaked towel on the ISS as something that probably couldn't be faked in a vomit-comet, and I dont think we have good enough CGI to create the seamless video we see linked above.
As far as the argument that the astronauts are on harnesses... here's an hour-long tour through the ISS using a single camera with extended periods with no breaks. I didnt watch the whole thing, but they seamlessly travel through multiple compartments, spanning several minutes, with no cut breaks. The video explains a lot of what's going on up there and how it works. And you see the astronauts backs numerous times, and their travel through the numerous compartments would be impossible with any kind of fixed rack/harness/pulley system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snn1k_qEx20
-
That's just it Iceman2020, there are things in this world that FET supporters have to irrefutably acknowledge because they can see it with their own two eyes, like our own existence for example. Happy to acknowledge that an organic lifeform can be conceived, develop into a grown adult with its own life, and that person hop onto an aeroplane to get from A to B or get in a car and drive somewhere and be guided by Sat Nav systems. Happy to acknowledge that the internet exists and computers exist, because it does and they do, despite maybe not knowing exactly how they work at a macro, micro, nano or quantum level. Yet, they can't comprehend that something as simple as space exists, or that we've ever been there? Just doesn't stack up. Or it does, but only because such evidence proves that the Earth is in fact a globe.
I've seen plenty of videos of people in space and on the ISS and just find it extremely hard to believe that for 2,500 years, scientists the world over have been a part of one huge, massive lie to hide the shape of the Earth, faking videos and photos even before we had CGI capabilities. The sheer amount of paperwork and money to uphold that would be just as, if not more immense than actual, tangible published research. It would mean that every single piece of technology ever developed to circumnavigate the Earth, or anything related to it, has to have been been rigged to make it feel/appear like we are travelling around a globe, but are in fact just going around in circles (pun intended) on a flat Earth. Every single book, paper, article, web site, and app ever written would need to be fabricated around a lie or misconception. Now, I'm not going to turn around and say some things aren't kept from the public or lied about in the interests of national security and whatnot, but celebrated space travel and the shape of the Earth...come on.
At the time of writing SciManDan had published a new video in response to people claiming that space doesn't exist and that we have never been there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE8B3g9AYks
-
@Stack
Thanks for posting the references and further backing up all the arguments in my last post
@RhesusVX
Respectfully, I think you can get your points across without ranting so much. I'd really like for this thread to keep a friendly tone.
I really like your question about satellite tech, cell phones, GPS, etc. Now I'm really curious about what the current FET thinking about them is.
And thanks for the video, although I'm not sure if it's really constructive in this thread. I say that because it looks like that video is trying to debunk the claims that one person had about space being fake. But isn't that putting up a straw man, since these might not be the same claims that jack44556677, Mark Antony, and others are making on this thread? We need to be patient and let them explain their views.
@Longtitube
Thanks, your info looks like a solid debunking of the hyperoxia argument.
@Iceman2020
I generally agree the harness argument seems weak after the hour-long video you presented.
About videos and pictures alone being sufficient evidence: I think we can make a much stronger case if we go beyond pictures and videos. The way I look at it is that we are going down the path of a "Reductio ad absurdum". And one might think it's absurd that all of this footage could be faked. But in my opinion, the absurdity level of the possibility that NASA is hiding some futuristic CGI capabilities is actually not that high. But if in addition to the pics/vids we also provide:
A) 3rd party scientific evidence (such as the research on moon rocks)
B) counter-arguments that debunk any evidence of the supposed conspiracy
Now we have a significantly stronger case. Now, the opposing viewpoint would depend on further assumptions. Not only is NASA hiding futuristic CGI capabilities, but also:
A) it's not just NASA, but a global conspiracy (since 3rd parties have provided scientific evidence of space travel)
B) the global conspiracy has been near-perfectly concealed (since no valid evidence of this global conspiracy can be found)
At this point, in my opinion, the absurdity level of the conspiracy theorist's view would be significantly higher. And the more absurd one view, the stronger the opposing view becomes.
-
@james38, fair comments mate, duly noted, and I agree with your "Reductio ad absurdum" statement. In my opinion, two millennia of science, uncovering of physical laws, tested theories and observation, all being either falsified or covered up by NASA, related organisations and all of academia is heavily skewed toward absurdity. When you also factor in that it's not just large organisations, but thousands of small, independent companies carrying out research and even individuals in their own back gardens making their own observations and measurements...at what point do the scales tip? I know the focus here is now largely on proof related to space travel, but we mustn't discount the proof that relates to what we observe from down here as well.
-
@Stack
Thanks for posting the references and further backing up all the arguments in my last post
@RhesusVX
Respectfully, I think you can get your points across without ranting so much. I'd really like for this thread to keep a friendly tone.
I really like your question about satellite tech, cell phones, GPS, etc. Now I'm really curious about what the current FET thinking about them is.
And thanks for the video, although I'm not sure if it's really constructive in this thread. I say that because it looks like that video is trying to debunk the claims that one person had about space being fake. But isn't that putting up a straw man, since these might not be the same claims that jack44556677, Mark Antony, and others are making on this thread? We need to be patient and let them explain their views.
@Longtitube
Thanks, your info looks like a solid debunking of the hyperoxia argument.
@Iceman2020
I generally agree the harness argument seems weak after the hour-long video you presented.
About videos and pictures alone being sufficient evidence: I think we can make a much stronger case if we go beyond pictures and videos. The way I look at it is that we are going down the path of a "Reductio ad absurdum". And one might think it's absurd that all of this footage could be faked. But in my opinion, the absurdity level of the possibility that NASA is hiding some futuristic CGI capabilities is actually not that high. But if in addition to the pics/vids we also provide:
A) 3rd party scientific evidence (such as the research on moon rocks)
B) counter-arguments that debunk any evidence of the supposed conspiracy
Now we have a significantly stronger case. Now, the opposing viewpoint would depend on further assumptions. Not only is NASA hiding futuristic CGI capabilities, but also:
A) it's not just NASA, but a global conspiracy (since 3rd parties have provided scientific evidence of space travel)
B) the global conspiracy has been near-perfectly concealed (since no valid evidence of this global conspiracy can be found)
At this point, in my opinion, the absurdity level of the conspiracy theorist's view would be significantly higher. And the more absurd one view, the stronger the opposing view becomes.
While I respect that you are far more polite than most others here, I'm coming to realize your intentions really are no different. It appears what you seek mainly is to reinforce your own belief in the globe rather than challenge the evidence against it. The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population, I won't lose sleep over it.
Also, primarily to the others, just because someone presents a counter-argument and I haven't responded immediately, does not mean they have debunked anything. I have a job like most people. My life is not consumed by flat earth as many globe theorists may percieve. In fact, I spend very little time thinking about it and the time I do spend, I can assure you won't be wasted trying to preach to those who despise it.
I may or may not reply at the weekend, it depends on if I have the time. (although seeing that hour long "single-shoot" tour of the ISS made me laugh - I simply can't let that go unchallenged)
-
It looks like everyone is wasting time discussing the two theories of the earth. In a court trial both sides call their witnesses. An eye witness is the best. I don't know exactly how many astronauts say they have been in space, but there's your eye witnesses. I believe that they all would claim that the earth is round, if you could ask them. That's the 'elephant in the room' here. In order for the flat earth theory to work it's an implied fact that all the astronauts would have to be lying. Now that makes things a bit more complicated for the flat earth theory. An astronaut says the earth is round by his/her observation and it would be up to the flat earth side to prove it would be impossible for the witness to be telling the truth. Is the astronaut blind? Was the astronaut seen in a bar somewhere when he/she was supposed to be in space? The space vehicle never got to orbit but was observed to land in the ocean somewhere and all the people aboard got off and went into hiding. No one was ever in the space vehicle when it left the earth and the astronauts 'left the premises' unobserved and went into hiding. Many astronauts are said to have died in the process of launching from or returning to earth. There's been plenty of pictures out there of some of the 'alleged' astronauts that are supposed to be dead. That's all I've seen is just pictures, but no investigation. If you say yes, I saw the earth from space and it was round, how do you prove it? There's pictures, but that's been alleged to be fabricated. There's moon rocks out there that have been observed to be unique and couldn't have been formed on the earth. There's the audio tapes, the space vehicles that have returned, ect. ect. It looks like the burden of proof would be on the flat earth side to demonstrate that the astronauts have all lied. Even if one astronaut was caught in a lie that wouldn't mean that all the others couldn't be telling the truth. So even if a flat earth theory was developed that was 'air tight' how do you deal with the astronaut witnesses?
-
The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population
So here's the thing. In the RET corner we have 2,500+ years of evolved science, observation, a single model that accounts for everything we observe on Earth (above the quantum level at least), along with photographs, videos and eye witnesses. That's the pool of evidence to support a round Earth, which by all accounts is rejected by 0.01% of the population as they formed their own conclusions for whatever reasons. I don't think it's case of either side trying to "convince" the other, but, given that there is an overwhelming skew towards round Earth, it's fair to say that the burden of proof does lie with the flat Earther. If RET evidence is bunk, why? Prove it.
The issue is that the "evidence" presented for a flat Earth isn't really evidence because it's largely just theories based on actual science, just with carefully selected elements and misinterpretation to make it sound plausible. Like the size and dimensions of the Earth - those are based on an actual experiment carried out by Eratosthenes, but that experiment was carried out based on the observation that light travels in a straight line. Nevertheless, FET chooses to accept that as the "diameter" of the observable Earth, but then suddenly introduces a whole new concept of "Electromagnetic Acceleration" to account for the spotlight effect of the Sun etc., in which light curves significantly and even does U-bends the further it travels. On the one hand FET has light going straight, and on the other it has it curving to suit - which is it? Such theories have no evidence to back them up, which is in complete contrast to round Earth where there is plenty of experimental evidence to back things up, hence there are mathematical models. For me this is the key difference, and nowhere on Earth has anybody measured light doing anything other than going straight, only affected by known, calculable effects such as atmospheric refraction on Earth and gravitational lensing out in space.
-
While I respect that you are far more polite than most others here, I'm coming to realize your intentions really are no different. It appears what you seek mainly is to reinforce your own belief in the globe rather than challenge the evidence against it. The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population, I won't lose sleep over it.
I appreciate your honest criticism, but I disagree with some of it.
My intention is not to persuade. I do really want to listen to flat earthers and be open-minded. You're right that my tone has become persuasive and I apologize for that. I am trying to incorporate all the evidence everyone is sharing and update you all on my logical conclusions and how I got there. If at times I lean into it too much and offend in any way I am sorry. If you could tell me exactly how I offended I will try to improve my demeanor.
What I'm really fascinated by and would like to learn more about is how you perceive my logic, where we share common ground, and where our logic diverges. That final point, "where our logic diverges" is possibly the most challenging question to answer and requires that we really get into the nitty-gritty evidence and arguments on both sides. That's why I'd value your responses to some of the arguments I/we have presented if you ever find the time.
I am not that interested in who should have the burden of proof anymore (though to be fair, I can't remember if some loose ends from that conversation are still waiting for Jack44556677's reply). At this point, proof from both sides is fair game to me. The "Let's start with burden of proof" title was an attempt to start from a philosophical common ground, and because I'm completely new here so I actually didn't know exactly where to start. At this point, I'm personally fixated on the NASA conspiracy, the evidence for and against it, and how we all interpret such evidence so differently that we come to opposing views on it.
It looks like everyone is wasting time discussing the two theories of the earth. [...]
I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying. But respectfully, I think it's a bit ranty and not really constructive at this point. We have already built a list of talking points and evidence that awaits flat earthers' responses. If you think there is something crucially wrong/missing from that list let us know but otherwise, let's be patient and give flat earthers a chance to respond.
So here's the thing. [...]
He said he didn't have time for a full response. I appreciate if you are coming to my defence but let's please just be patient and let some flat earthers respond to the list of constructive evidence/talking points I posted above before adding more.
-
To anyone who is not a flat earther,
I think it's counterproductive at this point for anyone except flat earthers to respond. Give them time and space to respond to everything. Let them catch up.
-
@james38
To anyone who is not a flat earther,
I am not a flat earther, nor do I know any, but in casual (and sometimes specific/in-depth) conversation I am sometimes mistaken for one - so I'll go ahead and respond!
I don't believe in anything since I'm an atheist? Correct me if I'm wrong.
As a human being, you believe LOTS of things. One of those things is that there is no god. The fundamental posit/premise/tenet of atheism is the faith/belief that no god does, and for many - possibly can, exist.
Many people mistake that because they are educated, that they do not harbor faith and belief. All humans do - they must. It is critical that we identify the beliefs that are masquerading in our hearts and minds as facts, and even truth. Acknowledging they are there is the first step.
To be objective, let alone scientific / scientists, takes enormous effort against our nature. Constant and unending. It is against that natural belief/bias/delusion that we must constantly struggle!
The scientific method can be used to test a hypothesis related to the shape of an object.
No. Once again, sadly, this comes down to semantics. A hypothesis is a speculation on the cause and effect of an observed phenomenon. "The earth [or any object] is a particular shape" is not a hypothesis, nor is it a valid one. It is not that from/during the scientific method you cannot determine an object's shape, it's just that there is only one way to do that - rigorous and repeated measurement. There is no other way, please correct me if I'm wrong!
Now, I think I know what you are thinking - but it is only because you (we) were taught incorrect definitions of science, scientific method, and experiment (that we were taught by those that ALSO did not know the correct definitions themselves) that you think the scientific method can be used to determine anything / answer any question - but it cannot. There is MUCH more to discuss here!
Measurement can determine an object's precise dimensions and shape.
Correct. In fact, that's the only way! In your example, the rolling and watching is the, extremely crude, inferential measurement. Direct measurement is always best if possible, especially when you want/need certainty.
Measurements can be used in scientific experiments.
In fact, they have to be! But measurements are not experiments. You have to measure the world to determine its shape. Experiment has no use in this regard.
How does this point fit into your larger perspective, anyway?
The correct and working definitions of science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment are at the core of scientific analysis, evaluation, and study/discussion. Most of us were taught incorrect and not-working definitions for those words and because so few become proper scientists - the definitions remain wrong and their facility and understanding of science remains broken. Many are misled through "education" that the shape of the earth can (and has) been determined by experiment. This displays and conveys a profound lack of scientific competency, that needs to be rectified if understanding and discussing science is to become possible!
I'm really curious how you visualize this (and I know its just an idea, you don't have to defend it I'm just curious). Is it like the world from Halo?
As I said, I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is. I have no conceptualization of it, and I lack the verifiable and verified data required to make such a determination with certainty. I know that water's surface does not curve at rest and this makes the vast majority of the water on earth (+70% by our estimates), essentially, flat. It suggests the world is mostly flat, but does not suggest the shape of entire thing.
In regards to the speculation of the "ring" of south pole encircling the north - the idea is that the earth is more like a ring magnet than a spherical/bar magnet. The "south pole" to someone standing on the ring magnet would always be away from north, but the "lines of force" constantly diverge until there is no more magnet left. In that case, there is no one south pole but rather there are infinite south poles encircling the north pole at the center. Let me know if you need a graphic on this one. This is a speculation regarding the magnetic field, not the shape of the world.
Can you please back up all your scientific claims?
I can, but I do not intend to submit cited research papers, only to engage in rational discourse! I am happy to provide supporting detail whenever I can!
Here's one of many! https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/rare-moon-rock-found-on-earth-573216. Sorry I didn't bother to track down the published papers - but it is reasonably well known that "moonrocks" have no non-terrestrial components - as was originally, erroneously, thought and advertised. Some see this as further supporting their religious beliefs that the moon was created from the earth in a "beautiful, constructive, and creative EXPLOSION" (this is not something that happens) but many of us are not as hopeful, gullible or hindered by bias/belief/religion/mythology.
And as for radiometric dating methods not working, here is another one of many : https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html. This claim will undoubtedly take more research for you to validate, however I have confirmed it repeatedly.
Because this subject has no school, teachers, curriculum, textbooks etc. - autodidacticism is not optional. You will benefit from doing the research yourself in a way you can/will never if I spoon feed / clockwork orange you. Building strong research skills is essential. Surface deep, you could have found support (or refutation) for these claims quickly, but that is not the case with many of the claims I make. If you earnestly cannot find evidence to support (or refute) a claim, let me know and I'll be happy to help in any way I can!
and the experiments by 3rd party researchers found evidence that is consistent with them being moon rocks.
You misunderstand. When we perform sample analysis, it is by comparison! We cannot confirm a rock is a "moonrock" except by comparison with other known and confirmed moonrocks! You have no evidence they are moonrocks in the first order, nor does anyone (and there is ample evidence they are terrestrial).
And if we already agree that a global conspiracy it too unlikely to have taken place, this makes the most likely scenario that both missions truly went to the moon.
Attempting to estimate "likelihood" (from your armchair, most often) is a crummy way to investigate (a crime, or anything else). A global conspiracy is very unlikely in both our views, but you are once again mistakenly assuming a grand coordinated conspiracy when small mostly uncoordinated ones will do just as well! In any case, regardless of which untrustworthy source you receive the samples of "moonrocks" from (the us military / cia / nazi scientists or the ussr/kgb) the samples are highly suspect and have no trustworthy provenance nor 3rd party validation whatsoever. The fact that they are similar when analyzed is interesting but does not establish they are trustworthy sources or that the rocks come from the moon.
That's a fun thought. Makes me want to read about moon gods.
It is! Recognizing you are/have been wrong can be liberating! You might want to check this guy out before you abandon science for mythology/religion (i jest, seriously there are LOTS of good/fascinating ones about the moon) - if you haven't seen him already ... I would like to confirm his existence and find his work if it wasn't scrubbed intentionally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhIwZuPGfss.
The tides are in no way caused by the moon. The frequency, timing, location, and amplitude all do not correspond causally (or otherwise in most all cases) to the moon nor any other light in the sky. The moon is not a god, nor does it rule the sea the way our foolish ancestors (and us :() believed! We probably already have enough "claims" (facts, in my view) "in the air" as it were, but this one also deserves/warrants scrutiny before acceptance - like all facts and claims.
Is this your full explanation or do you have any further readings to back this up?
That is the summation. There is much to read and discuss on the subject! The best way forward is to ask specific questions or otherwise respond to the content. If you disagree that the natural behavior of all energy and gas necessarily (and by their nature) prohibits the existence of vacuum (or mass concentration of anything remaining indefinitely) and/or sustained pressure differential with no barrier/obstruction - then respond why! Through discussion we can best discover what to discuss and/or read next.
But if you want to talk science, you have to speak plainly and precisely, even mathematically if possible
Agreed, though that need not preclude eloquence?! Thank you for the compliment, however have you heard that bad poets borrow and good poets steal? The phrase and the phrasing are not mine :(. It is thousands of years old, at least, and is an example of truth in my view because it applies across disciplines in a way it ought not.
But saying that "nature abhors it" is giving me nothing tangible that I can work with
Nature does not allow vacuums to exist, and imbalance likewise can only be maintained/persist for limited finite durations - most acutely when there is no obstruction to doing so. To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort. Naturally, vacuums do not exist - nature will not allow them. Air pressure is naturally isobaric / isostatic. I know we will have more to discuss about this to convey / understand!
Seriously, if you want to have [a] ... contest
I do not! I don't want any sort of contest at all! I want us both to be earnestly engaged in the pursuit of truth (or knowledge/fact failing that) together for our common benefit through rational discourse. No contests/debates, no winners and losers, no competition; collaboration instead!
and it was a tangential and purposeless remark anyway
I don't feel that way!
I think you felt it and thought it (perhaps still do!), and you expressed it earnestly and without reservation. I think that IS effective communication (or at least, a necessary first step), and pretending like it isn't true (and/or avoiding saying it) to either yourself or to me is detrimental. I am well aware that my views are unpopular, and seem extreme at first glance - crazy even! If you don't express that you feel that way and why, I may never understand that that is the case and may never be able to discuss and, ideally, convey to you why, although it seems radical/extreme, it isn't in actuality - or at least not as extreme as it seems at first glance (which is, granted, radically extreme to many if not most).
was expressing a feeling when I said your perspective sounded biased and extreme and that's all it was.
We are our feelings too! I side with captain kirk, as spock (pure logic) does - and for the same reasons (hopefully you are a trek fan...). Our emotions are a strength, and ignoring/suppressing/repressing them has terrible consequences. I'm glad you expressed it, and hope you continue to do so! We can express emotion and make progress in our discussion, and I contend that we must!
So where exactly is the logical contradiction between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the existence of space? I want to get into all of this.
Excellent! Asking specific questions / responding to specific content like this is the best way to do so!
"Space" is defined as a (mostly) empty void - if we get too detailed we get derailed by sophistry so I hope this is just specific enough for you to agree with.
The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure. When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it. That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area. It's a law. It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.
This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law. If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly. I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.
We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest. Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem - nor stop gasses from behaving as they demonstrably do where the "gravity" is believed strongest/greatest. If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law. This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".
Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to read through every reference in the wiki
I suspect that may be somewhat less than completely true, and I really do think the small amount of time it would take to get through it would be well worth it, but I hear you and am happy to give you my distilled view as best as possible.
But I hope you can agree this in itself is not evidence that NASA's expeditions were faked. It's suspicious, but not a logical contradiction.
Agreed. It is strong evidence that gus and team were right initially (and paid directly with their lives for having their valid concerns dismissed), and the apollo "tech" was deadly garbage throughout its entirety. It is evidence that the expedition we saw on tv is faked, because they lacked the technological ability to do so at the time (which thomas baron independently confirmed, and was rubbed out because of).
I do agree that it could all be coincidence, and that thomas baron could have been killed for gambling debts (for all we know), but I don't believe in coincidences and the supporting evidence solidifies the narrative/historical analysis adequately in my view. It certainly isn't proof in and of itself, but it is evidence that something is wrong when the independent oversight is murdered along with his family AND his scathingly critical and exhaustive report goes missing - mysteriously.
I hope we can agree at least at this point that you have no hard evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked.
It doesn't get any harder! The only evidence that exists of "space" writ large is that footage. Finding obvious and blatant fraud in it is the best that can be hoped for. Would nothing less than professor nasa himself admitting he faked the whole thing (and had the "behind the scenes" footage) constitute as "hard" evidence? I think you may be setting the bar too high than to continue to think that nasa footage is "hard evidence" of anything... Proof, "hard evidence", acceptable evidence is subjective - determining your threshold and criteria is critical, as is making them explicit, and keeping them consistent (and yourself objective).
But can we at least agree there is not hard evidence that they did not go?
I fear that we are near a semantical sink hole. If we agree that footage and pictures aren't hard evidence then there isn't any discussion anymore because that is all of "space" that exists in the first order beyond some "moonrocks" that are terrestrially composed. It all depends on the definition of the subjective term "hard evidence". Hard evidence to me is tangible and physical, not purely narrative/deductive etc. These pictures qualify as hard evidence to me, and it seems you feel the same way (just oppositely).
However, if you're ultimate goal is to measure the shape of the planet, wouldn't you agree it's not enough?
Absolutely! Only rigorous and repeated measurement of the entire world can determine the shape of the entire world with certainty. However, going back to the subjective/personal criteria i mentioned above - the measurement of the curve (or distinct lack thereof, which we always measure at rest) would be enough to establish the globe posit as a part of empirical science (for the first time, mind you) and suggest spherical is a possible and arguably even likely shape for the world.
Even if you have a perfect measreument of the frozen lake, that doesn't translate directly to the shape of the entire world.
Agreed. However your valid procedural concerns for the observation can (and should) be mitigated! One of the most important and fundamental aspects of empirical science is rigorous and repeated measurement. By merely repeating the measurement alone, we can increase our confidence in it and address much of your concerns.
Ok, I'll try to use this definition for "experiment" moving forward.
Excellent! Thank you. It is critical, and is a "working definition". I use it because it is correct/works and fits all cases. If it can be demonstrated to not work, it is important to change it - but so far I have found no fault in it. It is the best criteria I know of to discern science from pseudoscience masquerading as it.
But I'm not sure about your ring theory, which I need to hear more about. What do you think?
The ring "theory" is purely about the magnetic field. It need not have any correlation to physical shape, though many who toy with the notion conceptualize the world's surface as a circular disc - much like the ring magnet it correlates to (usually without the hole in the center, but not always!).
I think it is reasonable, but sadly impractical / logistically nightmarish. If we had the magic tape measure it might be quicker/more convincing to just measure latitude lines, assuming they are verified to remain equidistant from the north pole AND assuming a "disc" or otherwise planar earth (and that our maps are right). If the world is in fact flat, and latitude lines are in fact always equidistant to the north pole - then after the equator, they should continue to grow indefinitely (to the bounds of the earth, if such a thing there be)
I did a bit of searching for this but couldn't find anything good. Any published research?
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/257846
https://fgcu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fgcu%3A28314
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm
I most highly recommend lockhaven.edu, it's excellent.
I look forward to more discussion!
-
My intention is not to persuade. I do really want to listen to flat earthers and be open-minded. You're right that my tone has become persuasive and I apologize for that. I am trying to incorporate all the evidence everyone is sharing and update you all on my logical conclusions and how I got there. If at times I lean into it too much and offend in any way I am sorry. If you could tell me exactly how I offended I will try to improve my demeanor.
I appreciate that and no need to improve your demeanor at all. I was just concerned that what was a constructive debate is descending into an us vs them free-for-all, of which there is no shortage of on the internet already. You have to admit, the treatment of those who take the flat earth/alternative view point in recent years has been truly despicable to say the least. The media, online forums, "scientific community" and the general public, all who claim to be more progressive and respectful of alternative ideas, have held little more than disdain for the flat earth concept; a sheep mentality of weaponized ignorance. Any form of meaningful discussion has been massively censored and any scope for growth has been hammered down at almost every corner of the internet. Thats my impression at least.
This perception has stifled the development of these alternative ideas. The lack of experimentation and peer reviewed scientific articles supporting flat earth theory is not an indicator of it's illegitimacy or lack of scientific footing; it is as a result of the perception imposed by the media and embraced by the general public. Ridiculing "flat earthers" has never been as popular as it is now. No college, scientific journal, phd student is going to risk their livelihood to research these topics. Hence the severe lack of sources that many of us would consider trustworthy. With this in mind, be very careful about drawing conclusions on what you think is evidence against flat earth theory. Despite the beliefs of many, the accepted form of science is not infallible, it is simply a placeholder until a better explanation is found.
Now we have a significantly stronger case. Now, the opposing viewpoint would depend on further assumptions. Not only is NASA hiding futuristic CGI capabilities, but also:
A) it's not just NASA, but a global conspiracy (since 3rd parties have provided scientific evidence of space travel)
B) the global conspiracy has been near-perfectly concealed (since no valid evidence of this global conspiracy can be found)
At this point, in my opinion, the absurdity level of the conspiracy theorist's view would be significantly higher. And the more absurd one view, the stronger the opposing view becomes.
Before I get onto the harnesses, and the CGI and hair washing etc. I have to address this idea around a conspiracy that you appear to get hung up on. Why do you think there has to be a conspiracy? You need to understand that NASA, as an organisation, and the idea of there being no outer space can coexist without there being a conspiracy.
Just think of it from the perspective of the person in charge of the organisation. You have billions of dollars allocated to you per year from a governmental source above you. If you've ever worked in a competitive company you would know that if your department doesn't spend the money, it won't be allocated the same funds the next year. These executives and project managers are under real pressure to spend this money. But thats no problem - they have huge R&D departments, managerial teams, consultants, marketing departments, administration departments to pour capital into and thats before they have even built any rockets. The rockets and all the structures required to launch are built by contractors. A contractor wins a bid to build the thrusters or a gimballing mechanism or a hatch. (I had a lecturer in college who won a contract to head a project on material selection for a coupler system to allow a rocket to dock on the ISS). There is absolutely no doubt that there is lots of work being carried out at NASA, nobody denies this. I think we can all agree that they build rockets and they blast them off in the sky. This we are 100% in agreement on and there is no conspiracy here.
What we disagree on forms such a miniscule facet to the organisation on a whole. And that is: What happens after the rocket goes out of sight? For this we are completely reliant on what NASA shows us. You believe we are shown footage from space. I believe the rocket crashes in the ocean and what we are shown by NASA is nothing more than an artists impression of what space is.
Take this example: Every astrophysicist knows that the picture of the black hole published a few years back was little more than an artists impression created for the sole purpose of creating something digestible for the general public. Something that would encapsulate all the hard work done by the scientists so that they could get the public recognition they deserved. The real detection of the black hole lay in spectrophotometric data - but the public doesn't care about this.
The footage we are shown in space is no different. It's little more than digestible material for the benefit of the public to recognise the hard work by the scientists and engineers and contractors and also to justify the billions of dollars that is poured into the organisation every year. There is still no need for a conspiracy here. The marketing team receive a portfolio and funds just like all the other departments. They are under pressure to create this promotional material. They hire actors, build studios, video editors, carry out many parabolic flights. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy, they are just fulfilling the portfolio they've been given to create footage of "outer space" that is digestible to the public.
Neil Armstrong, Buzz and Michael Collins weren't in on any conspiracy either - they were just tasked with shooting footage to sell to the public to give the impression that we succeeded in going to the moon, with the added benefit of taking their mind off the Vietnam war and to fulfill the dream of JFK - that is all! All of this can exist without there being any lies or sinister intentions.
-
Mark,
I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the start. The reason I came to this site was because the talking heads you find on youtube - on both sides - are, for the most part, intolerable.
I'm curious to learn about different view points and ways of explaining things, so I came here and started asking questions.
I agree that scientific advances are very often too complicated for the general public to digest, and your example of the black hole is completely valid.
I do think you could re evaluate your position on NASA and rockets. Perhaps if you tried to pin down where NASAs capabilities end and the conspiracy begins.
I would also agree that a few pictures, in themselves, do not add much 'proof'. But I would counter that some of the clips of astronauts on the ISS, many of which (like the water wringing video) were pulled from an extended LIVE VIDEO STREAM (sorry for the angry-looking emphasis there), create a significant body of evidence of NASAs capacity to delivery astronauts to orbit. The water- wringing video was part of an extended Q&A session with school children.
The last point I would make is that it might seem like an extraordinary claim, arguing there are currently people in space. And to be fair, it is extraordinary.
When I need to make an argument in science that defies common-held views, I try to dissect it into smaller pieces. As an example, we can definitely send huge rockets up into the air, higher than we can see with our eyes. Videos using significant zoom can track them even further. We know there is no barrier as high up as around 60 km based on live data feeds from weather balloons. Satellites are whirling around the earth at all times, providing us with internet, phone and TV signals, shooting stars can be observed moving in all directions in the night sky, suggesting the lack of a physical barrier between what's above earth and what's further beyond, it also suggests there is relative motion between earth and other things out there. That's my thought process at least. I ask myself what I need to know and what I need to believe for a claim to be true. To me it seems a lot more likely that NASA is pretty good at building rockets than that they have cornered the market on live CGI/augmented reality decades ahead of the best current capabilities.
-
Nature does not allow vacuums to exist, and imbalance likewise can only be maintained/persist for limited finite durations - most acutely when there is no obstruction to doing so. To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort. Naturally, vacuums do not exist - nature will not allow them. Air pressure is naturally isobaric / isostatic. I know we will have more to discuss about this to convey / understand!
...
Excellent! Asking specific questions / responding to specific content like this is the best way to do so!
"Space" is defined as a (mostly) empty void - if we get too detailed we get derailed by sophistry so I hope this is just specific enough for you to agree with.
The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure. When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it. That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area. It's a law. It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.
This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law. If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly. I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.
We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest. Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem - nor stop gasses from behaving as they demonstrably do where the "gravity" is believed strongest/greatest. If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law. This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".
I will agree with you in the literal sense - even in the vast reaches of sciences definition of the Universe, there is no complete, total vacuum. Close to, but not quite. So, by definition nature doesn't like a total vacuum, only partial. However, I don't agree with the statement that weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter. That definition is only needed because you don't think gravity exists, and because gravity doesn't exist, mass cannot be real either, and so you have to come to that independent conclusion. It's a bit like a flat Earther thinking the Earth is flat, and so that means all other observations must conform to support that thinking. If there is no gravity, and the "weight" of the air is able to create its own pressure gradient, how is the air being contained?
Also, if weight is an intrinsic property of matter, wouldn't you expect a cannon ball dropped from a tall tower to reach the Earth faster than a golf ball? If not, why not? In the real world we see things fall at the same rate because something with more mass is harder to move that something with less mass, so the effects cancel out. If gravity doesn't exist and mass isn't real, the only thing impacting their fall to Earth (neglecting air resistance) would be their intrinsic weight.
-
Mark,
I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the start. The reason I came to this site was because the talking heads you find on youtube - on both sides - are, for the most part, intolerable.
I'm curious to learn about different view points and ways of explaining things, so I came here and started asking questions.
This we are completely in agreement on. The polarizing views of many stifle useful debate.
I agree that scientific advances are very often too complicated for the general public to digest, and your example of the black hole is completely valid.
I do think you could re evaluate your position on NASA and rockets. Perhaps if you tried to pin down where NASAs capabilities end and the conspiracy begins.
This is something I think about regularly. While my post above argued against the need for a global conspiracy on a massive scale, I do think it is likely that there are large groups (military personnel, freemasons, political figures for example) who are in the know, have huge financial interests and have influence in the direction these organizations go. Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard, Werner Von Braun all with interests in science fiction, all with shady origins, played a huge role in the deception. Armstrong, Buzz etc. all contributors. The "victims" of the challenger and columbia disasters know for sure. Chris Hadfield, Scott Kelly and Elon Musk are definitely big public names who I believe know.
Saying that they did a good job keeping the secret is not exactly accurate either. Most of them in their final years revealed hints at these deceptions. Von Braun allegedly confided in his assistant in the weeks before his death that there will, in future, be a space based defense program to defend from threats from outer space. He told her the threats will all be a lie (first 5 mins of this should be enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP8ftWzFYI4) We have since heard Trump refer to a space defense program. Van Braun's gravestone holds another message. Neil armstrong made very few public appearances. I believe he was a very honest man, and I think his conscience weighed heavily on him (Buzz is far more dishonest). Neil referred to "breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". We have a former senior CIA officer admit that NASA was the branch that drove the deception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay9ooq4eahM
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.
I would also agree that a few pictures, in themselves, do not add much 'proof'. But I would counter that some of the clips of astronauts on the ISS, many of which (like the water wringing video) were pulled from an extended LIVE VIDEO STREAM (sorry for the angry-looking emphasis there), create a significant body of evidence of NASAs capacity to delivery astronauts to orbit. The water- wringing video was part of an extended Q&A session with school children.
Don't get me wrong, the technology they are using here is incredibly advanced. But so is the technology in the film industry. The Martian, Ad Astra, First Man, Gravity, Interstellar - all very convincing .The footage we have from space over the years always held the same quality as the cutting-edge in film technology. They use video layers, chromakey/green screens, VR headsets. You can often see from their eyes that they've had the VR headset edited out and their eyes stitched back on with CGI. Often times the astronauts aren't even in the same room as each other but they are stitched into one scene.
Most of the clips they claim are live, simply are not; they are pre-recorded, the kids are asking set questions. They do have software to filter out harnesses in live interviews like the one above with the somersault. These genuine live interviews are incredibly rare however as they are often heavy with gaffes. The "single shot" ISS tour was not a single shot. They are inside a vertically fixed studio set. the camera faces upwards - you can tell by the vein in their foreheads that they are hanging downwards. There is a break in the video segments when they pass the camera over. The point the camera spins is when they switch the video segment. They use the reverse image inlay as a way of strengthening the deception here as it makes it look like there are astronauts on both sides of the camera when in fact there is not. The clip of the woman washing her hair is during a parabolic flight. You can clearly see how they shot this over multiple takes - there are about 10 needless transitions in the video. The sound of the engines in the background is a key indicator for parabolic flights.
I said I would provide more proof of the harnesses. This video gives a nice summary and isn't too sensationalist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQz675jjR0
-
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.
I don't think rockets break any laws of physics. This is one of the objections used to 'disprove' any pictures of space or any videos of astronauts on the space station. Since the astronauts would most likely agree that the earth is round they would be eye witnesses to that fact and could carry the 'Burden of Proof' for the round earth a long ways.
Don't be afraid of discussing how rockets work it because of the fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge required. I am an engineer and have math & physics books handy!
-
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.
I know you don't want to go off on a tangent, but, this is the most intriguing and telling bit for me. Newton's laws are called laws for a reason - they apply everywhere. Newtons first law is stated subtly differently depending where you look, and yours is one just one example. However, it's the action of "a force" or "an imbalance of forces" that cause something to change its state. This could be external to the object, or it could be the object itself causing the imbalance.
The whole "action-reaction" bit is Newton's third law, and a jet works by sucking in air from its surroundings and thrusting it out of the back at high speed. So yes, by pure definition a jet that relies on sucking in air and throwing it out of the back won't work in space. However, rockets are not jets. A rocket engine creates its own thrust because the fuel contains an oxidiser as well, allowing it to combust in the absence of air/oxygen. In this case, the rocket and its fuel together act as one object and the ejection of exhaust gases itself causes the imbalance of forces that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction.
Maybe it's a misconception that people think something is needed to push against? A simple experiment is to just sit in a swivel chair and fling your arms out in one direction. The chair moves a bit in the opposite direction (only a bit because of friction and the low force involved). That's not me pushing against the air, it's just Newtons third law in action. Same with throwing a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, perfectly fine example. Brushing it under a carpet of complex maths and engineering just makes it sound like part of yet another conspiracy, this time involving the laws of physics.
In space, or a very thin atmosphere if you will, even a tiny jet of air can cause a change in motion because there is very little resistance.
-
@rhesusvx
I can believe something to be true, like "I believe I left the light on downstairs". I don't know that because I'm not sure, but I can prove it by going downstairs and making an observation. Now I know that I left the light on.
We are in complete agreement. This is an example of the correct use of the word belief. Belief is not always religious, but is always contingent on faith - which is one of the hallmarks of religion. The religion I most often speak out against is called scientism (though I am a heretic to all faiths, scientism included).
I find it odd that you think that mass is not real and cannot be rigorously defined.
It was quite the revelation for me I can tell you. I had to learn the correct definitions of science and the scientific method first, before I could make progress separating the science from pseudoscience. The fact that mass and gravity are not / cannot be rigorously defined or measured is well known in advanced physics - not so much amongst the laypeople and undergrads. The (minorly) radical aspect of my view is that neither are real, but it is only a short skip away from the established view when viewed objectively.
Mass is just a quantity, an amount of "stuff".
No, this is not correct. There are generations of high school and undergrad students that learned the same, but it has been determined (repeatedly) that mass is not the measure of "stuff" by any measurable metric. It isn't so much a an outright "lie" as it is an inaccurate and misleading oversimplification / misrepresentation designed to be just "good enough" to shut the students up and get to the next lesson.
or the outer reaches of the galaxy
There is no such place, and there may well be no physical moon either. That's all sci-fi, as it always was. I like sci-fi too. In any case, science is studied on earth. That's the only place we can make partial provisional statements (the maximum certainty possible in science) about. Speculations about fictional places, or places we cannot or have not been is not science - it's fiction.
So what is gravity then?
Almost no one has any idea. I have figured it out, and I am not alone. It is mathematical fiction with no reality whatsoever. Weight is all there is, an inexorable and intrinsic property of all matter.
surely you must have your own alternatives that scientifically prove these facts?
Scientific proof comes only, and still - only tentatively/provisionally, through experiment (or in the case of natural law, rigorous and repeated measurement alone). The equations don't change much, and are not relevant to manifest objective reality in any way. Mass and gravity are mathematical fiction that exist only in equation. They annihilate one another to return to the real and measured weight they started as, and this is NOT coincidence and requires minor accommodation. Some equations, that use mass alone, will need a new concept / rebranding called intrinsic weight - which is the weight in vacuum. Resistance to motion - inertia is caused/correlated directly by/to the intrinsic weight of the object - which, unlike mass, is measurable. No mass science denial/eschewing or "physics bashing" is occurring here - we are talking about minor and simple changes.
I'm sure you knew, apologies, but others may not.
This is true. Many of the things I repeat are for the same reason. They bare repeating!
if the notion of an infinite vacuum above our heads is offensively stupid and unscientific, what wouldn't be stupid and more scientific?
Good question! My first reaction is that I just do the demo - contractor doesn't come until I haul all this old junk away first. My second reaction is that one of the most scientific answers is "I/we don't know". My third reaction is that science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the exception of natural law, which is established through rigorous measurement alone). The scientific method can only be used on things we can manipulate. Manipulation is required for experiment, and experiment is not an optional part of the scientific method.
We cannot perform experiment on or in "space" and the only people who claim they can and do are the MIC, who are not trustworthy. Astronomy/astrophysics is attempting to establish natural law by watching the lights in the sky, but there is no reason for anything they concoct mathematically to have any relevance on earth (unless of course, you are an astrologer). No experiment is possible in either discipline, and they are among the most unreliable and least accurate "sciences" in existence - though still profoundly better and more actually science than things like anthropology or economics ever could be. Primarily astronomy and astrophysics are mythology masquerading as science because they are created by looking, making explanations up wholesale, and then looking some more - which is how mythology is made.
1. A dome to contain it, or
2. An infinite column of air above us
These are two possible conceptions, yes.
Both sound offensively stupid to me, but then that's why I'm here - to learn more about flat Earth theory and how best to approach it.
I think it is important to remember the distinction between simple and stupid. In any case, they are merely the speculations of inquisitive minds and we must be careful not to shun such things! Also, reality is often stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibilities.
Again, that sounds offensively stupid to me, but the same reasoning applies in my view.
Fundamentally, there is nothing stupid or unscientific about swapping/flipping conventions - as long as you are consistent. Astronomy and astrophysics work the same when the universe is conceptualized/modeled spinning around a stationary earth as when the earth is conceptualized to whirl and zoom instead/as well. As long as you are consistent, the science is correct. Making gravity the earth rising up is not indefensible, scientifically. Though it is silly - that doesn't make it untrue! Science is the best way we know of to determine what is actually happening!
1. Reproduction of Eratosthenes experiment - shadows of different lengths in different parts of the Earth at the same time (was surprisingly accurate!)
2. A friend of mine has a small boat, and we often sail out on a river that just happens to head towards, and past, a tall radio mast. The mast appears from the top down.
3. The reverse of 2, viewing a cruise ship sailing out to sea. It clearly disappears from the bottom up.
All 3 observations (none of them are in any way experiments) are real and valid! It is only the interpretations of them that are incorrect because of profound amounts of unvalidated (and incorrect) assumption (bias) required for them.
There is only one way to determine the shape of the world, even just on a small/local scale. Merely looking at things, mistaking them for "measurements", and declaring with undue certainty that your explanation of them is the only one possible doesn't fly in real science. There are good, understandable, and most importantly - validatible through measurement - reasons why your interpretations, mandated in "school" through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, do not bare scrutiny and have more sound and scientifically consistent alternate explanations.
means that either A or B can be the only logical explanation
Incorrect.
I have no reason to posit that the Earth is anything but A.
You and most everyone else! That's why it was so easy to have wrong for so long - it is largely inconsequential! There's no reason to question or thoroughly critically evaluate it - especially with any sort of funding.
Whether it is or isn't, whether NASA are lying or not, life will just go on as it is anyway so it's all a bit moot really!
I agree. Nasa and any conspiracy or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to the shape of the world. It's a red herring.
Appreciate your input, it's genuinely fascinating
Excellent! I do aim to please!
I'd love to know why you find the methodology flawed
Most specifically, because it does not measure the surface of the water - and that is the whole point. Other reasons are lack of repetition (multiple locations / averagings), lack of multiple measurement techniques for verification/validation (specifically physical tangible lines being utilized, ideally), and general reliance on purely passive optical observations (known to be misleading) for "measurement".
In any case, it is in no way an experiment. It will take some time to undo the damage done to science by bad/incorrect definitions being taught to so many.
At the very least it means it's not flat.
It may suggest that it isn't flat specifically where they observed it, but even that is questionable because no physical measurement was taken - it was merely inferred from what was viewed. Often times what we see is not what is, and our interpretation of it is often wrong even when it IS. Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them. - obi wan
-
or it could be the object itself causing the imbalance.
It simply can't. This very point is why I'm not getting into the topic. Thankfully we have a first hand source for Newton's Law (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) The one I cut and paste above was from NASA's own website, admittedly an unreliable source ;)
Here is the direct Law from Principia:
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
Direct translation:
Law I: Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless in so far as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon
This word "impressed" what does this mean? Thankfully Newton didn't want any ambiguity or misinterpretation of his laws by dubious future space administrations - so he gave clear definitions:
Def IV
Vis impressa est actio in corpus exercita, ad mutandum ejus statum vel
quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum.
Consistit hæc vis in actione sola, neq; post actionem permanet in corpore.
Perseverat enim corpus in statu omni novo per solam vim inertiæ. Est autem
vis impressa diversarum originum, ut ex ictu, ex pressione, ex vi centripeta
Direct Translation:
Definition IV:
An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change
its state, either of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.
This force consists in the action only; and remains no longer in the body,
when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires,
by its vis inertiæ only. Impressed forces are of different origins as from
percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force.
He makes it abundantly clear countless times in the context of the document that "impressed forces" are those from different origins.
You cannot create your own external force. This is the last post I'm making on this topic.
-
@jack44556677
Many thanks for taking the time to amicably respond to each of the points, much appreciated. I can wrap my head around a lot of the equivalencies, and the notion of weight being intrinsic is not ridiculous in of itself. Lots of things in the world are bonkers when you think about it! It’s all food for thought, and you are absolutely right about the fact that your eyes don’t always see things as they are ;)
@Mark Antony
I don’t quite agree. In the vacuum of space, if I were holding onto the rocket and I pushed hard against it, I would accelerate backwards at the same rate the rocket is accelerated forwards. Crucially, the combined relative velocities remain at zero, and the combined centre of mass remains at the origin in my frame of reference. The third law is therefore still respected because as a whole there is no net change. With a rocket burning its fuel and creating thrust and pressure in the engine bell, it’s basically the same principle.
I think it’s an important point because if the claim is that NASA is a conspiracy and that we have never been into space, part of the debate around that conspiracy is the claimed inability of rockets to work in the partial vacuum of space. It’s all related.
-
@james38
It's arguably a personal attack to call the other's views "offensively stupid".
It is, arguably. However, I personally feel that we should, and should encourage others to, viciously/rigorously attack the thoughts - just never the thinker. There is a popularized misconception, fostered in school, that having stupid ideas makes YOU stupid. This is something we need to set straight. All of us think stupid things, and are stupid. Stupid is an aspect of humanity, not an archetype. The greatest "geniuses" that have ever lived all thought and believed embarrassingly stupid things. There is no shame in it nor does it have bearing on intellect or competency.
I think its pointless and sad for us to insult each other's intelligence.
Oh, there's a point alright - the (attempted) prevention of communication/discussion when done disingenuously... Sadly there are many disingenuous about. In any case I agree that ad hominem is only across purposes to learning, teaching, and communicating.
I'm asking everyone to stay patient with each other
Agreed!
@RhesusVX
The “offensive stupid” thing wasn’t a direction at anyone, just repeating back what I’ve seen written because I actually believed the very statement itself to be the same.
It was an emotional/evocative description for rhetorical impact, which you used in kind. I certainly did not see it as any kind of ad hominem or attack of the thinker - hopefully no one else did in my usage. It is helpful to remember that we were most all indoctrinated through the same (or extremely similar) "educational" process. We were all required to believe and repeat the same things, and there is no us vs them - it's all just us. I was also required to learn and repeat the offensively stupid mythology of the "solar system" and "space" - as most all of us were. Dissent/disagreement was not an option.
I am also of the "sticks and stones" position and words only have the power over you that you give them.
I think where it starts to become derogatory is when FET supporters go out of their way to simply state that RET supporters are wrong and that we have all been fed lies, yet provide no rationale.
Rationale is not lacking. I think you are trying to express your displeasure with the rationale itself (and evidence), not the lack thereof. Is it derogatory to tell a scientologist that they believe in nonsense? I don't think so. Is it derogatory to tell a student that they're wrong (with accompanying rationale or not)? We have been fed many lies, that much is clear, obvious, and denied by few who have given it adequate thought/evaluation - the bugger is figuring out which ones (and then sharing our findings with others)!
It’s interesting because I don’t consider RET as a cult or faith either.
You are not intended to. It is by design. Scientism is a pernicious religion, and they get them young.
Here is my litmus for determining a cult. All cults have 2 things in common, and by these hallmarks we can recognize them (even if they - the cult members - most often do not)
1. They require acceptance of dogmas on faith.
2. They punish dissent.
By the criteria above it is obvious that RET is a cult (as are most all religions), but it takes a bit more analysis to make that determination with certainty. There are, sadly, also "pockets" of flat earth researchers, acolytes, and/or believers that absolutely fit the cult criteria above. As a whole however, there is no FET "community", college, pope etc. - so there can be no institutional punishment for dissent, and the loose affiliation of flat earth researchers fit neither criteria.
We don’t necessarily go around attesting that the Earth is a globe.
Of course you do! I appreciate that virtually no one goes around claiming that the earth is a globe to other people in daily conversation - however, in this one - that we are having right now - they (RET proponents) absolutely and unequivocally do. Both implicitly and explicitly. It would be dishonest for most "educated" to claim that they do not, in fact, claim/attest that the earth is spherical (and more commonly, that they merely believe that it is - and don't think of it at all - nor have they really ever).
The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. The burden of proof for the claim that the earth is spherical is required by all claimants. The "2500 years of science and advancement" are not proof, nor evidence of the claim. When you evaluate that "room of smoke" (2500 years of ALL the evidences!!!) you find that individual claims and evidences evaporate when you try to evaluate them critically. In my case, providing evidence and proof that water at rest does not have a curved surface the globe model requires is trivial. In the presumptive case, the claim that the earth is a sphere is MUCH harder to defend and provide solid support for. They have to get us young for this reason, but it has no bearing on the convention of the burden of proof.
@Mark Antony
Well said and explained!
-
@james38
Of course you do! I appreciate that virtually no one goes around claiming that the earth is a globe to other people in daily conversation - however, in this one - that we are having right now - they (RET proponents) absolutely and unequivocally do. Both implicitly and explicitly. It would be dishonest for most "educated" to claim that they do not, in fact, claim/attest that the earth is spherical (and more commonly, that they merely believe that it is - and don't think of it at all - nor have they really ever).
The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. The burden of proof for the claim that the earth is spherical is required by all claimants. The "2500 years of science and advancement" are not proof, nor evidence of the claim. When you evaluate that "room of smoke" (2500 years of ALL the evidences!!!) you find that individual claims and evidences evaporate when you try to evaluate them critically. In my case, providing evidence and proof that water at rest does not have a curved surface the globe model requires is trivial. In the presumptive case, the claim that the earth is a sphere is MUCH harder to defend and provide solid support for. They have to get us young for this reason, but it has no bearing on the convention of the burden of proof.
@Mark Antony
Well said and explained!
I will gladly bear the burden of proof. My life has depended upon the earth being round countless times. On a ship we use charts and navigation equipment that are all setup according to the round earth model. All the navigational officers are trained to respect that model as well. Now imagine what would happen if the earth were actually flat and not rotating. There could be egregious navigational errors. Using round earth navigational techniques on a flat earth would be dangerous. In the Pacific ocean there are some areas where the water is quite shallow but there's no island. All these areas are marked on our WGS-84 or British Admiralty Charts we are required to carry. You can imaging what would happen if any ship, due to a navigational error ran over these mid-ocean reefs and ripped the bottom out. Any person working in the engine room or down in the cargo holds could easily be killed in such an event. I've personally been deep in the forepeak tanks and in the engine room bilges while underway. If the ship hit anything at that time, it would be very bad.
So given these facts you can see that since I'm still alive and have never been on a ship that ever ran aground in the middle of any ocean I have a lot of confidence in the round earth model as taught to us at the Merchant Marine Academy. The burden has been accepted and the model has been demonstrated to work by mariners for a long-long time.
Will there ever be a point where the flat earth model can be discarded given the extensive experience that seafarers have with the other model? What other kind of 'proof' is required? Don't bother to start looking up the records of all the ship disasters that have occurred in the last 100 years. There are all kinds of other reasons why bad things happen. I've always said on any given day there's 1000 ways to die at sea.
-
@ronj
Your conviction is laudable, and your gyrocompass premise/data/interpretation is intriguing.
I am not doubting/questioning your certainty, competency, nor experience or knowledge on the matter.
I just think that it is worthy of another thread, specifically about gyrocompasses and related devices. It also has relevance to pendulums and RLG/FOGs.
My life has depended upon the earth being round countless times.
Your life depended on the accuracy and use of technology and maps. If the earth is flat, then those maps and technology simply function adequately on a flat earth. Nothing you are saying demonstrates the shape of the earth (though the gyrocompass data you talk about is certainly potential evidence), nor is any technology or map reliant on it for its functional use. Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.
What other kind of 'proof' is required?
There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty - rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.
-
Your premise that all the navigational techniques that are assumed to be based upon the round earth model would produce 'adequate' results on a flat earth just doesn't compute. That would especially apply to navigation South of the equator. What is known, for sure, is that our navigational techniques were always said to be based upon a round earth. Saying that the mathematical techniques based upon a round shape would be accurate when translated to a flat shape would have to be followed up with a lot more than words to be believed by real world navigators when accurate results are so important. Do you have any information that shows how this could possibly work? This would be of great interest to sailors & pilots world wide! If we are incorrect in our round earth assumptions we all really need to know! Vague theory just won't help much for something this important.
PS: For several years a did work aboard some well know research ships. We weren't out there just traveling back & forth hauling cargo but actually staying out in the ocean for extended periods while scientists studied the earth below the oceans. So, yes there are those who do take measurements.
-
@jack44556677
Your blend of science and critique is applauded, but with much respect (something you have definitely earned) a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective, and I don't say that in a derogatory manner because you are clearly very well educated and spoken. I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them.
The room of smoke containing 2,500 years worth of evidence evaporating when you critique them individually...the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat. The ongoing sequence of implications that one theory has on the next winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective. I know you don't claim that the Earth is Flat, but you do say that it can't be round. Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground. The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round. If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact.
I'm genuinely interested to know which elements of the different theories you do consider accurate. Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else? In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory? I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.
I'm intrigued as to why you think water cannot curve though. It curves all the time. If water couldn't curve, it wouldn't be able to fill a round bottomed flask for example. At the small scale, water forms a meniscus against a surface, it beads up on certain surfaces, and in the absence of gravitational effects, it forms globules as it tries to conform to its lowest energy configuration. If you take a steady stream of water from a tap, you can induce a movement of that stream using electrostatic forces. There are all manner of ways in which water does not behave flat/straight. If you dip a football into a bucket of water and take it out, there's a film of water all around its surface. Water conforms to internal and external curves all the time. Granted, you can't pour water onto the football and have it be a meaningful depth all the way around because the forces at play are not very strong, but on a large body like Earth, it's a totally different scale. If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?
You may say I'm a victim of education, but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend - especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see. Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved - I've measured it myself with a colleague of mine (on the premise light travels straight, hence I asked you that question earlier). Sailors at sea will observe the tops of distant mountains or volcanos appearing first before the rest of the mountain reveals itself. I'll refer back to the Rainy Lake Experiment as well because I'm interested to know why that setup, carried out on a frozen lake, setup with high accuracy and fairness to give flat/round a chance to show itself, is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.
Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained. By all means people can still maintain that space doesn't exist and that it's all fake, but the maths and physics around it are sound and well understood. I've got the phone number of a guy who I worked with who literally studied rocket science and I'm sure he'd gladly provide all the examples and explanation needed to back this up. Here's a YouTube video showing a basic experiment showing thrust in a vacuum. OK it's not world class, but illustrates the point quite nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug
Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society, and for the vast majority of people that's just how it is and they get on with their lives. Science accepted this long ago and moved on. The only reason people push the globe Earth narrative with all of its evidence is because there is a group of people claiming it's not round, more specifically, that it's flat. Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything. Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here. Sure, on the RET supporter side we also have people dismissing things in the flat Earth Wiki, but I don't see that as evidence, it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).
I would agree, rigorous measurement is required to determine the shape of the Earth, but I'd also argue that there already has been. The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.
-
@rhesusvx
a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective,
When there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theorist", how could I have their perspective? The term conspiracy theorist is only a derogatory/slander - it has no meaning beyond that. A conspiracy theorist is a popularized/advertised trope for slander/discrediting, nothing more (nor has it ever been used for anything else, ever). It doesn't have a meaning or rigorous definition. If you would like to know more about the origin of the phrase and its use, you may wish to check out this thread for an overview / direction on what to study further https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16815.msg221623#msg221623
I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them.
I don't either, but I accept and recognize that it is potentially possible. It wouldn't be the "government" though, they are FAR too poor and incompetent. In any case, any "conspiracy" or lack thereof is, as we agree, completely moot and a distraction/red herring from the real topic of the shape of the earth. This is a discussion about science, but a lot of people (especially the "educated") cannot tell the difference between science and science fiction/pseudoscience. Learning the correct definitions (of science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment) is a necessary first step.
the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat.
I agree, more or less. Anyone who makes the claim that the world is flat (or any shape) does not have the verified and verifiable data to back up their claim with certainty. There is more evidence consistent with scientific knowledge supporting a flat earth locally (than other shapes), but nothing to suggest the shape of the entire thing. For that more verified and verifiable data is required (repeated and rigorous measurement of the world)!
winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective.
Not with the zetetic approach (as I understand it), no. In any case, optical illusions are often tricky. I can explain the optical illusion of the sunset (and boats / stars / constellations) clearly to you, so that you understand it, however - when you don't understand something, you should ask questions!
Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms
Round-ish, possibly. Spherical, essentially never. But this whole approach is garbage. The "elegance" of the platonic shapes has no bearing on reality, nor are aesthetics a good way to determine science from pseudoscience.
The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round
Many of the lights in the sky appear round. Round is not the same as spherical, nor do the lights in the sky have anything to do with the earth.
If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact
Here we are back in the room full of smoke. So let's try to grab at one of these, often implicit, claims - that the sun is a ball of gas or that the moon is a ball of rock or cheese or any other stupid thing man might fancy. Do we have any good evidence to support these wild and ridiculous claims? Of course not, we are merely told we do early and often. The idea that the sun is a ball of gas was stupid when it was originally imagined (they thought the sun was like a gas light, because they were stupid) and it is twice as stupid now. Astronomy is largely not science, nor was it in the past/its heyday.
Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else?
There is no strong evidence to support the presumed (since pythagoras) spherical nature nor composition/function of the moon or sun. There is barely any evidence at all. Obviously they are real, it is our mythology about them that is the fiction.
In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory?
Light is a pressure wave. It travels with, and is comprised of, its media. Under "normal" circumstances, barring refraction, the pressure wave radiates in wave patterns through that media in the same direction it did initially. Only interaction with matter can alter lights path (though interference can occur as well and appear/manifest as path alteration, it most often does not) and this is experimentally validated fact with no contrary experiment, measurement, or demonstration. I am not a proponent of EA, but I cannot discount it as a possibility entirely.
I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.
I do indeed. I can only speak for myself, and it is this way with the vast majority of flat earth researchers.
If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?
Obviously water is matter and can be made to conform to any shape. One of the hallmarks of fluids, especially water, is that it can support no shear stress. As a result, at rest, the surface of water is only one shape - horizontal, flat, and level. This is a readily demonstrable law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries.
Yes, surface tension / london dispersion / electrostatic forces are real. They are also non-sequitur, like tides.
Tides occur. They are in no way caused by the moon or any light in the sky. Water can change shape, swell, shoal, move etc. for a variety of reasons. The fundamental cause of the tides is a mystery, as it always was. More science is required!
You may say I'm a victim of education
We all are, brother or sister. We are products of our society and raising wether we want to be, accept it, or not. Our "education" is indoctrination/conditioning through rote under the guise of education.
but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend
And we're back to making aesthetic choices instead of scientific ones. It does not matter that it is more "imaginable", "reasonable", "easy to comprehend", or more "elegant"/"pretty" - that isn't how we make choices in science! Sadly there are many "scientists" that make this mistake (unrepentantly) and encourage others to do the same.
especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see.
This is that room of smoke again. If we critically evaluate this statement (that we hear repeatedly from childhood), we find that this statement is clearly untrue. All models are wrong, but limitedly useful for a time. The presumptive model is a paper mache project millennia old - it's (barely) held together with spit, polish, gum and twine. It NEVER explains anything (models are not for explanation), and it is constantly and consistently wrong as it always is. It does not predict most of the things we see, nor are its predictions accurate in most regards (beyond the limited ones the model was designed for and built from - with accepted margins of error of course!).
Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved
This is merely a mantra, required to be recited and repeated since childhood with no dissent. Water's surface never curves at rest in the sustained convex curvature required by the globe model, nor has it ever been measured to (only the distinct lack of curvature is ever measured). The world can never be spherical in empirical science until that measurement exists. On the other hand, the statement is TECHNICALLy correct literally - land can be any shape and water too!
is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.
As I explained, it doesn't measure the curvature of water at rest - which is the whole requirement. Every time water's surface at rest is measured it is level/horizontal and flat. There are no contrary measurements, and there MUST be for the spherical posit to become a part of empirical science (for the first time). It is also disingenuously and erroneously presented as an experiment, when it is a mere observation - but this is "par for the course" with people who don't understand science and were improperly educated.
Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained.
It is an interesting claim, one that I rarely defend (but is reasonably easy to do so - much more than you might expect). I have yet to do the science myself however, but most all accelerants/fuels fail in vacuum (yes, even with adequate oxygen in the solid fuel). It is possible that rockets do not really work without air to push against them. In general I do not doubt the "equal opposite" law - but that doesn't mean rockets work. Any high school (and some middle school and below) student can calculate (as von braun did, and everyone else involved), trivially, that chemical rockets are a farce in any case.
At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society
Exactly. Dissent is not allowed, and severely punished. We are required to take the spherical earth as a dogma of our faith beginning from a shamefully tender age. There is no academic or scientific freedom of exploration for this subject and countless others.
Science accepted this long ago and moved on
Science is not a person, nor has it ever "accepted" anything. Consensus is unwelcome in science, and essentially doesn't exist when it is practiced properly. All you are expressing is the reality; no scientists work on this subject, nor are they allowed to if they wished to. There is no funding, and endless ridicule/punishment for dissent. I highly recommend a bbc program called "heretic" to help you understand what is going on in "science". Historically, no scientist has ever worked on the subject/problem - ever.
Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything.
There is ample evidence/science to support all of those claims, unlike the claim that the world is spherical - which is merely an unvalidated assumption more than 2 millennia old. It was also taught to children for millennia as validated fact, erroneously and disingenuously, continuing to today. In any case, this isn't about proof of the earth being flat, it is about there being no validation/proof of the assumption the world is spherical first concocted by stupid and lazy rich pedophile slavers in ancient greece.
Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here.
I haven't seen it much HERE (except on the RET side), but I have seen it a lot - and I agree that it is not good science - to say the least. The competent researchers and those knowledgable about science do not (they try, anyhow) make this mistake. Selective dismissing of evidence, without justification, is indefensible and the vast majority of competent flat earth researchers simply reinterpret evidence (more consistently with science, typically) NOT discard it. All scientists, even, are guilty of bias (selective evidence being one component) despite their best efforts, however.
it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).
I disagree. It isn't even a theory in a scientific context. Most of flat earth research products (scientific and historical analyses, observations, experiments etc.) are not part of a generative "theory" as much as they are demonstrating flaw in the presumptive model mandated as truth without dissent from childhood through conditioning by rote under the guise of education.
but I'd also argue that there already has been.
As you are intended to (and informed as such)! However those of us that bother to rigorously and critically check (virtually no one, by design) find that the data is not there, and the data that is comes from the proven and demonstrably untrustworthy MIC. Science must be validated, repeated and repeatable - and that "science" is anything but.
The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.
Once again we find that when we distill the room of smoke (of 2500 years of ironclad, irrefutable evidence!!!) , all that remains is what we saw on tv as "proof". This is unacceptable to all researchers, scientists, and capable students (which, regrettably, there are very few of due chiefly to lack of competent teachers).
Welcome to flat earth research! Almost nothing is as it seems at first glance; it takes more disciplined study to pierce the veil.
-
I appreciate MarkAntony doesn't want to post any more on rockets in space, but the insistence rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push on is wrong. Simply put, the rocket is pushed by expelling its fuel out the back at extreme speed (speed generated by burning the stuff). Take the third stage of a Saturn V, which weighed around ten metric tonnes when empty and carried over a hundred metric tonnes of fuel, and operated only in space. Expel those hundred tonnes as a single mass backwards at 10ms-1 from a stationary rocket and reaction to the necessary force will push the now empty 10 tonne rocket forwards at 100ms-1 in accord with Newton's 3rd Law. Since the tonnes of fuel have left the rocket, the rocket continues on its way until another force acts on it. Of course the real rocket exhaust roars out of the engine at much higher speed, supersonic speed in fact (and not all the fuel at once.)
There is an earthbound comparison I find useful: swing your open hand through the air and feel how much resistance from the air you can detect, then try swinging your open hand through a bath of water at the same speed and feel how much more resistance to movement from the water you can feel. There's lots more resistance from the water, isn't there? Yet here's a conundrum: boats that use water jet propulsion don't direct that jet into the water, they direct it above the water into the air, which has much less resistance to push against. The difference in propulsion is dramatic, so here's a 1000hp+ gas turbine-powered jet boat doing its stuff on a Canadian river. (look at the enormous rooster tail from the water jet; these guys are nuts...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVbxNYSodrU
Now if the water jet works much better pushing the water jet into air with much, much less resistance to push against than water, then the efficiency of a water jet has nothing to do with pushing against a resistance. Its efficiency is all to do with directing as much water backwards in as short a time as possible to drive the boat forwards at as high a speed as possible in accordance with Newton's Third Law. The boat above manages 100mph+ speeds. Rocket engines do the same, and are in fact more efficient in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.
-
I appreciate MarkAntony doesn't want to post any more on rockets in space, but the insistence rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push on is wrong. Simply put, the rocket is pushed by expelling its fuel out the back at extreme speed (speed generated by burning the stuff). Take the third stage of a Saturn V, which weighed around ten metric tonnes when empty and carried over a hundred metric tonnes of fuel, and operated only in space. Expel those hundred tonnes as a single mass backwards at 10ms-1 from a stationary rocket and reaction to the necessary force will push the now empty 10 tonne rocket forwards at 100ms-1 in accord with Newton's 3rd Law. Since the tonnes of fuel have left the rocket, the rocket continues on its way until another force acts on it. Of course the real rocket exhaust roars out of the engine at much higher speed, supersonic speed in fact (and not all the fuel at once.)
There is an earthbound comparison I find useful: swing your open hand through the air and feel how much resistance from the air you can detect, then try swinging your open hand through a bath of water at the same speed and feel how much more resistance to movement from the water you can feel. There's lots more resistance from the water, isn't there? Yet here's a conundrum: boats that use water jet propulsion don't direct that jet into the water, they direct it above the water into the air, which has much less resistance to push against. The difference in propulsion is dramatic, so here's a 1000hp+ gas turbine-powered jet boat doing its stuff on a Canadian river. (look at the enormous rooster tail from the water jet; these guys are nuts...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVbxNYSodrU
Now if the water jet works much better pushing the water jet into air with much, much less resistance to push against than water, then the efficiency of a water jet has nothing to do with pushing against a resistance. Its efficiency is all to do with directing as much water backwards in as short a time as possible to drive the boat forwards at as high a speed as possible in accordance with Newton's Third Law. The boat above manages 100mph+ speeds. Rocket engines do the same, and are in fact more efficient in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.
I posted a video of an ex-CIA senior agent refer to NASA as "Not A Space Agency" and that "this is where the bulk of the mind control happens" and yet time and time again people ignore it and want to discuss my comment on the rockets. This is exactly why I didn't want to discuss it as all the useful and interesting information gets buried in a meaningless debate over whether rockets work in space. On a side note, I've been banned from two separate conspiracy themed forums because of this debate without breaking any of the forum rules, so I really have no interest in risking another ban by debating it further.
But for the sake of lurkers or anyone who might be dissuaded towards flat earth by the attempts to discredit my claim relating to rockets breaking Newton's first law, I will argue it this one time. The examples above (the can and rocket in the vacuum) do not hold any water (so to speak) as the so called "vacuum" they apply is immediately compromised as soon as the can bursts and the rocket fires. The chamber is filled with gasses instantly. These are bad experiments and people should read into them with high caution.
Your analogy with the boat is incomparable as there is no vacuum present and, unlike the rockets in space, it conforms to all of Newtons laws of motion. Your example with the rocket at the start is exactly what you think should happen but definitely not in theory or practice
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.
All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.
-
Your analogy with the boat is incomparable as there is no vacuum present and, unlike the rockets in space, it conforms to all of Newtons laws of motion. Your example with the rocket at the start is exactly what you think should happen but definitely not in theory or practice
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this, your definition of a system seems wrong: once the ball has been thrown, unless it is somehow tethered to the astronaut, it is no longer part of a system with him. Thank you for responding nevertheless.
If anyone else is interested in this kind of problem, this might help illustrate it, including discussion of whether the ball remains part of the system or not:-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UYb4rs013ZQ
-
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.
All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.
With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.
Here’s a similar thought experiment. You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary. If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s. This cannot be the case though. The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you. The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown. Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.
It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth. If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy. However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball. This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against. It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards. Has nothing to do with pushing against air.
I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are. Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy? Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this, your definition of a system seems wrong: once the ball has been thrown, unless it is somehow tethered to the astronaut, it is no longer part of a system with him. Thank you for responding nevertheless.
Please don't be sorry, you can disagree all you like but my definition of the system, unlike yours, obeys all three of Newton's Laws of motion.
I watched the video and everything he said (except for the cause of the movement of the boat) was correct mathematically until 4:00. The discussion around the movement of the boat was completely wrong. The initial (miniscule) movement of the boat is caused by the ball pushing off the air. When he throws the ball outside the boat, the increased movement is caused by the force he gained from the air + the ripples caused by the ball landing in the water.
Everything he says after minute 4 is fundamentally flawed as he assumes (like you do) that the ball is external to the system. The ball simply cannot be considered external to the system and therefore would have to either use the surrounding air/water as a propellant or break Newton's first law. All the references to center of gravity are irrelevant when you consider velocity of the entire system. With the bowling ball example above the astronaut might spin around but it wouldn't make any difference to the velocity of his centre of gravity.
With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.
My position is that there is no space. And even if there was a space as it is described to us, we would not be able to get there with the technology we have. And if we somehow did get there, we would never get back. There does not need to be a big conspiracy.
Here’s a similar thought experiment. You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary.
I didn't use a stationary example as it is much harder to comprehend for those either side of the debate.
If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s. This cannot be the case though. The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you.
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown. Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.
It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth. If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy. However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball. This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against. It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards. Has nothing to do with pushing against air.
It has everything to do with air displacement!
I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are. Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy? Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.
They're all doing the same thing as I described a few posts above. There is no grand conspiracy. The very perception that there needs to be a grand conspiracy is enough keep people fooled. Even if someone did blow the whistle nobody would believe him and his mental stability would likely be questioned before being ushered out of the building.
-
I posted a video of an ex-CIA senior agent refer to NASA as "Not A Space Agency" and that "this is where the bulk of the mind control happens" and yet time and time again people ignore it and want to discuss my comment on the rockets. This is exactly why I didn't want to discuss it as all the useful and interesting information gets buried in a meaningless debate over whether rockets work in space. On a side note, I've been banned from two separate conspiracy themed forums because of this debate without breaking any of the forum rules, so I really have no interest in risking another ban by debating it further.
Just really quickly, you posted a :38 clip of an ex-CIA saying "Not a space force" and mind control bit. But there's zero context. How is anyone supposed to respond to it? What was the context of where he said what he said and why, in response to what? What's your interpretation of what he meant? What are you trying to convey with it?
I looked up Steele and he has a YouTube channel where he talks about a secret space force with underground bases on Mars and such. So if your interpretation that he backs up your notion that space flight is impossible, he's a bad reference to pick because he completely contradicts you. So why do you want to talk about him?
Side question, which forums were you banned from?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sat4I5e5bZA
This is a nice demo of force generation for the rockets / Newton's third discussion.
-
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
Swap the bowling ball with a big heavy wall. If you were to push against that wall, instead of the wall moving you would end up going backwards relative to the direction you pushed. In space you would keep going for a very long time due to there being very little resistance. If a new wall kept repeatedly appearing and you were able to keep pushing off each one, you’d end up going faster and faster. No atmosphere is needed to push against.
Ultimately jets need air to be sucked in to create thrust. Rocket motors create their own thrust. Neither work off the principle of pushing against air itself, same with recoil. When a gun is fired, what do you think causes the gun to recoil in your hand? It’s not air displacement. You can fire a gun in a vacuum and you still get recoil. Fire a gun in space and the gasses that propel the bullet forward will also push you back.
The video Iceman2020 linked to is a perfect illustration of how thrust works. The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.
-
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
If a ball were thrown away from you in space it would stop accelerating immediately after it left your hand. The reason for that would be, no force, no acceleration (F=MA). After the ball left your hand it would continue forever in the direction thrown. In order for it to slow down it would have to be influenced by a force external. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in order for a ball to 'run out of energy' it would have to give that energy to some other mass, but in space there's no other mass to give it to. There would be no force external. The spaceman who threw the ball would be accelerated in the opposite direction assuming when the ball left his hand the velocity vector went opposite his center of mass. Otherwise the spaceman would probably just mostly spin. The spaceman would be accelerated less because his mass was greater (F=MA). The spaceman would continue to move in the opposite direction forever. There couldn't be a force external applied because there's no other mass to run into. Since E=MV2 and energy can't be destroyed the velocity would be constant forever unless there was another force external which was available. Maybe an asteroid could come by and modify the scenario.
PS: What might happen if the spaceman had a hand grenade? There would be no 'force external' so would it blow up? Would it kill the spaceman?
-
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.
-
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.
You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.
For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws. I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it. I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.
In relation to what RonJ said at the end about a hand grenade, here's an interesting video about trying to ignite stuff in a vacuum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cx9mNnky2U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cx9mNnky2U)
Contrary to what some people might (reasonably) think, something that is self-oxidising can burn inside a vacuum (which can only ever be partial) Again, that video isn't perfect, but it does illustrate how things behave differently in the absence of an atmosphere. In some cases, depending on what is being ignited and how, energy is dissipated so quickly that burning as we know it doesn't always happen, which does support what some people might think. However, when confined to a binder or a casing, like in a hand-grenade for example, the explosion would happen in space, just looking very different. The absence of anything around it means you wouldn't hear it, and there wouldn't be a shock wave. The high-energy gases produced wouldn't form a fireball or plume of smoke as we see on Earth. Instead everything would spread out somewhat evenly in all directions, forming a ball of gas. That gas would very quickly dissipate, significantly reducing its effective "blast range" compared to here on Earth, and the resulting shrapnel would just keep going forever until acted on by an external force.
I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself. However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time. Imagine sitting in an office chair with wheels on a smooth surface. You can flap your arms about but you won't propel yourself easily. Now imagine if a friend was sat next to you on a similar chair. If you push against them, you will both move away from your starting positions by the same distance. The force you placed on him was met with an equal and opposite force from him on you. In that sense, you're the rocket, he's the exhaust. Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle. None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected. Far from not working in a vacuum/space, rockets can be more efficient in a vacuum/space because of the very absence of an atmosphere.
I found this to be interesting as well as it explains more about the forces at play:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/9-7-rocket-propulsion (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/9-7-rocket-propulsion)
-
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
This is not the case.
If we are in space, outside of LEO, frictional forces are minimal. If you are holding a heavy bowling ball that is 1/10th your mass and you push it away from you, you will accelerate in the opposite direction at 1/10 the rate. This is not a violation of any of Newton's Laws. His 3rd Law loosely states: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people get confused on this one because they think the action/reaction forces happen on the same object, but they don't. The Action here is you pushing on bowling ball with a Force. The Reaction is the bowling ball pushing on you with an equal sized force. Your acceleration and the bowling ball acceleration are not equal because you have 10x the mass, 10x the inertia. This also conserves momentum. If it is in space, the bowling ball when then keep its velocity, never speeding up or slowing down or turning until on 'outside' force acted on it.
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.
That's how rockets work in space. The combustion of burning the fuel slams into the focused nozzle of the rocket. The nozzle pushes on the hot gas, putting a force on all that gas, directing it out the back of the rocket. The gas then returns the force but opposite direction on the rocket, accelerating the rocket forward.
I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
Here is a question to check your understanding: If a large dump truck and a small ford fiesta hit in a head-on collision, which vehicle has the greater impact force? *hint: It's both. or neither. Their impact forces are the same.
-
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.
That's a really good explanation, and per your latter point, exactly right - the act of pushing on one bowling ball wouldn't send them back towards Earth, it would simply reduce the velocity at which they are traveling away from it. However, give the astronaut enough bowling balls to throw and eventually they would be able to reverse their direction, which is akin to gas being constantly ejected out of a rocket nozzle.
Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws. In of itself though, it doesn't prove that space as defined exists or that we have been there, so those particular claims are still wide open for discussion, and on that note... For those who claim NASA and other space agencies are basically just large movie studios with actors, what do you think of the recent dragon launches into space? I don't think there can be any denying that a rocket was launched given the sheer number of witnesses, but is the rest of the footage considered fake, and did the rocket and contents simply fall back to Earth out at sea?
I know @james38 tried to bring some direction to the thread and focus it, and I'm as guilty as anybody for this little deviation, but I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece. However, bringing it back around to where james38 was coming from, it basically came down to proving that NASA and other space agencies are not fake, and are in fact legitimate organisations doing what they say they are doing. For them to be faking it, it's not just other space agencies that need to be in on it. Pretty much all of academia needs to be too, plus thousands of other independent research institutions and even engineering companies who create things like radio equipment. Even amateur backyard scientists are now able to use powerful telescopes to make observations and get cameras high enough up above the Earth along with equipment to measure atmospheric pressure, composition, temperature, altitude etc. The notion that organisations like NASA and SpaceX can do a little bit better than that isn't so absurd, but the notion that we are all being lied to by millions of people around the world about space travel and, by some inference, the shape of the Earth sounds far more absurd to me.
-
Gee it took a while, but I think I am finally caught up!
First, my (very late) response to james38's thread outline / summation post.
@james38
Of course, they aren't published science, but that doesn't mean we can't personally apply the scientific method in how we analyze them!
Videos cannot be subjected to the scientific method, only objective manifest reality can. We can analyze, infer, estimate, sometimes even measure and arguably establish natural law (which is scientific, but not a part of the scientific method) But we can't experiment (or replicate in this case), which is required by the scientific method.
we are going to start sharing videos with each other?
Not me! Videos are poor evidence, but can be helpful at times.
Yeah, tv sucks. I don't even have cable.
It certainly does. It could be used for such good - perhaps one day.
So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it.
You may agree, but it is only because you have no doubt realized that, without nasa's "evidence", there exists no validation for the assumption of the sphericity of the world in all of human history. It has merely been perpetually inferred and calculated. Even if it were THEIR validation, it can never be ours and we can never replicate or validate any of it - this is not, and cannot be, science. Surely demonstrating and determining the actual shape of the world shouldn't require abject appeal to authority (faith), right?
All this talk of nasa, fraud, and footage is red herring / tangential. The existence or non-existence of any fraud is inconsequential to the shape of the earth and to ascertaining it with certainty.
1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)
I find, in my analysis, that the "moonrocks" are decidedly not from the moon nor do we have any evidence for their provenance. In my view they were likely manufactured by the same untrustworthy source(s) they came from, but it is not impossible they come from the same actual location on earth, and are an odd sort of rock (we would expect it to be from a remote / deep / difficult to access location if this were the case).
2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)
There are lots of compilations and footage analyses that exist showing both of these. One astronot almost drowned on a "spacewalk".
3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)
Nasa has repeatedly violated the wonton trust that it originally had through hubris and nationalistic pride. Nothing but rigorous and repeated independent oversight and replication of their "feats" will ever suffice.
4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)
The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist. The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss. The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level). In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.
5. The Conspiracy (MarkAntony and jack44556677)
The existence of a conspiracy has not been proven or disproven, simple as that.
Perhaps, in any case - it is irrelevant to the shape of the world.
6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)
As markantony explained, the water wringing is likely pure cgi and prior to cgi a variety of techniques were used. The skylab footage is likely a large converted airplane belly - but there are other ways to achieve the footage.
7. Antarctica (Mark Antony and jack44556677)
Also red herring and not relevant to the shape of the world.
8. Just some discussion
Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy
Utterly incorrect. The shape of the earth, and its measurement, has nothing to do with any conspiracy or lack thereof.
And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!
It's a distraction and a red herring.
since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.
Nor vice versa, correct.
I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread.
Though contesting is rarely a good way to learn anything new, it is precisely the physics that we ought to be discussing. It applies to both the shape of the world and the fantasy of "outer space".
@rhesusvx
Even if you take NASA and their “fake photos” out of the equation, there is still enough evidence to support the globe model
There damn well better be! Right?!
@james38
FET researchers are working hard to develop an alternate theory to describe our observations of reality based on the flat earth mode
Not really, no. Models got us into this mess, and they won't be helping us to dig our way back out. There is no flat earth model, nor is anyone out there looking to make observations consistent with it. Zetetic (and actual/real) science is conducted in a different way than that.
FET would become more than just fun reading. It becomes an actual logical possibility.
I assure you, it is! Nasa has nothing to do with it, nor are they involved in the earnest analysis/evaluation of flat earth research products that, many of which, demonstrate the presumptive model is not consistent with observation.
I think we can both agree that you are merely explaining your version of how these videos could have been created but not providing any hard evidence that these videos are fake. [in your response to mark antony]
Explaining his analysis of the evidence is every bit as "hard", if not harder, as the evidence that these videos are real (which is none but abject appeal to authority, over the protests of the senses and natural law, mandated since childhood by conditioning through rote under the guise of education)
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.
There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits. The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling. The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.
Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.
Apollo (and mercury before them) was breathing the straight 100% O2 with caution to the wind and very much 0 f*cks. The "right stuff" people are cowboys - space monkeys and stick jockeys; they do stupid and reckless things by profession. Yet more than one of them have felt, uncharacteristically for the profession AND the era, they had to publicly denounce the ability and competency of the apollo program. It looked a bit too risky, even to hardened adrenaline addicted professional daredevils...
-
So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it.
You may agree, but it is only because you have no doubt realized that, without nasa's "evidence", there exists no validation for the assumption of the sphericity of the world in all of human history. It has merely been perpetually inferred and calculated. Even if it were THEIR validation, it can never be ours and we can never replicate or validate any of it - this is not, and cannot be, science. Surely demonstrating and determining the actual shape of the world shouldn't require abject appeal to authority (faith), right?
I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?
1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)
I find, in my analysis, that the "moonrocks" are decidedly not from the moon nor do we have any evidence for their provenance. In my view they were likely manufactured by the same untrustworthy source(s) they came from, but it is not impossible they come from the same actual location on earth, and are an odd sort of rock (we would expect it to be from a remote / deep / difficult to access location if this were the case).
What might your analysis be? I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that. And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance. It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.
2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)
There are lots of compilations and footage analyses that exist showing both of these. One astronot almost drowned on a "spacewalk".
I think I've seen all the compilations. Well, I'm sure not all, but dozens. And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained. And yeah, the Italian who almost drowned in his suit, well, he almost drowned in his suit. That incident doesn't really speak to anything other than that fact. If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.
3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)
Nasa has repeatedly violated the wonton trust that it originally had through hubris and nationalistic pride. Nothing but rigorous and repeated independent oversight and replication of their "feats" will ever suffice.
What government agency hasn't?
4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)
The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist. The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss. The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level). In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.
I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?
6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)
As markantony explained, the water wringing is likely pure cgi and prior to cgi a variety of techniques were used. The skylab footage is likely a large converted airplane belly - but there are other ways to achieve the footage.
The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI. Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was. There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.
As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations. So I would say the big bellied plane is not the answer. As for cables and such, there's no evidence of that either. Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.
Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy
Utterly incorrect. The shape of the earth, and its measurement, has nothing to do with any conspiracy or lack thereof.
I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.
There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits. The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling. The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.
This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:
In 1966 Jim le Blanc was exposed to a near-vacuum with almost disastrous consequences
https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/incredible-footage-of-a-nasa-test-subject-being-exposed-to-a-space-like-vacuum/
https://youtu.be/KO8L9tKR4CY
-
What other kind of 'proof' is required?
There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty - rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.
[/quote]
Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly?
Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed. They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule.
And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey? How much fuel are they supposed to carry? When should they expect to arrive?
If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance.
-
I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.
I completely agree. While jack44556677 is correct in saying that the actual shape of the Earth has nothing to do with NASA or any conspiracy directly, they have a lot to do with providing visual proof, which seems to be at the heart of every Zetetic inquirer - observe then conclude. That such visual proof would basically be the end of FET as we know it, it's understandable that it just gets brushed under the carpet as a conspiracy, and a massive global one at that, not only including other space agencies, but requiring research facilities, educational establishments, engineers and scientists the world over to be in on the act.
Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed. They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule.
And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey? How much fuel are they supposed to carry? When should they expect to arrive?
If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance.
This is one of the key things for me, and it doesn't matter what the actual units are. Whether it's miles and hours, or km and days, if you use the same units all of the time you will get pretty accurate distances between land masses and hence their relative positions with each other on the surface. With the sheer amount of global navigation happening by land, sea and air, it's reasonable to take these things as agreed, known quantities. Taking those, you simply cannot create a flat map of all of the continents and maintain those same relative distances. It just doesn't work - something somewhere has to give.
If indeed the Earth were to be flat, that would mean that every single piece of navigation equipment, and hence anything related to do with measuring speed, distance, time, direction and location would have to be engineered in such a way that it gives the impression that we are traveling around a globe. This is why any conspiracy goes way beyond just NASA and space travel, it includes all of the technology that we use in our daily lives.
-
(Part 1 of 2)
All caught up! Thanks, everyone for your interesting replies.
First, Some Meta Points
Firstly, I'm categorizing people here as FET proponents and RET proponents for practical purposes. I know what you are thinking Jack, no I don't mean this literally, I just need some way to categorize people! :)
I'm with Jack that we should all be "earnestly engaged in the pursuit of truth". We come here with many opposing views which means we all have a lot to learn from each other. But with opposing views, competitive language is inevitable.
Nobody here is "crazy". We all have human errors in our judgment. As Jack said, "rigorously attack the thoughts - just never the thinker".
I've found it helpful to admit publically when this conversation has helped change my view in any way. It fosters trust in each other. If you find your views haven't changed or grown at all, it might behoove you to ask yourself if you're here with an open mind.
One thing I think we should all start to ask ourselves is why every one of us seems to fall in a "belief camp". Why are there not many people who are in the middle, or unsure? We should all humbly admit our own bias before looking at anyone else. And we should find common ground.
Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims. Citing references for as many of our claims as possible is critical for keeping this thread constructive. Everybody should take responsibility for backing up their own claims, with citations. @Jack I appreciate that you want people to develop their own research skills, but in a context such as this where there we both know there is a muk of disinformation, the best way we can communicate is to validate our own claims on the spot with sources. Ideally a URL to something that people can read or watch. Peer-reviewed published articles are highly dependable, but not the only acceptable sources. In rigorous scientific or technical writing, backing up pretty much every statement you make is a standard procedure and it prevents the spread of disinformation.
Approaches to discussing FET
There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth. Many fields of science, space flight, religion, history, philosophy, even rating and appeal to emotion just to name a few broad categories. It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring. And I may have been guilty of this in some form in the past, and I apologize for it. When we tell someone their approach is invalid, we are blatantly cherry-picking conversations that are in our comfort zone and succumbing to confirmation bias.
Space flight remains my favorite approach simply because from a quick google search (can't back this up), it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked. So at the very least, this might be the most relevant part of our discussion here to the general public. It also gives us the chance to share the burden of proof, since we can examine proposed evidence for the conspiracy right alongside evidence of space travel.
The Conspiracy
Mark, Jack, and the tfes wiki have been helpful for me to understand that the view of the conspiracy is that it can be very small. I think I speak for many RET proponents when I say that we view the conspiracy as necessarily large, and possibly global, involving multiple governments and 3rd party research institutions. This conversation doesn't need to end with us just "agreeing to disagree" in my opinion. Discussing evidence related to "how large or small the conspiracy would need to be" seems like a proper proxy conversation for discussing RET and FET in general, since it is such a critical part of both side's views. I recognize I need to research more into the list of evidence for the conspiracy in the tfes wiki page before I can delve deeper into this.
The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
I do agree that it could all be coincidence, and that thomas baron could have been killed for gambling debts (for all we know), but I don't believe in coincidences
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence. There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful. Since we cannot quantify "the number of Thomas Baron incidents", we look at the other kinds of evidence that might exist. Again, I haven't seen it yet, but when I have the chance I'll read through the links in the wiki.
The Conspiracy: Mars Rat
Here's the picture
https://storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/mars_rat1.jpg?w=700&h=428
[The evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked] doesn't get any harder! The only evidence that exists of "space" writ large is that footage. Finding obvious and blatant fraud in it is the best that can be hoped for.
I hope we're miscommunicating here! After all of your talk about precise measurements, I can't believe that you would call a rock that looks vaguely like a rat "obvious and blatant fraud". I mean, don't get me wrong, that rock is mildly interesting for sure. But you do not know it is a rat.
Societal Opression
Jack and Mark have often made remarks about oppression in education, academia, and society in general. I'm afraid we aren't taking these points seriously enough. If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.
I want to hear and talk more about these concerns.
When it comes to education, I'm wondering if any FET proponents have put forward any sort of proposals for changes to curriculums?
When it comes to academia, I admit I may be missing something here but I don't personally see the issue. I am a scientific researcher, and I know first-hand that the scientific community has some of the most creative, open-minded, welcoming, and "nutty" people you can imagine. Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!
If a researcher in any scientific field could conduct an experiment that changed our understanding of the shape of our world, they would jump on that opportunity. Scientists LOVE to disprove old theories. There's no greater pleasure. And research institutions love to fund research that will get a lot of attention, even negative attention. Any attention at all can be profitable. If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.
Look, I know I'm biased and many have more negative views about academia. But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence. Have there been any specific experiment proposals that have ever been rejected by a research institution, or any other evidence of oppression by academia? Or is it possible that we just don't have the technology yet to make the necessary measurements?
Lastly, Jack made statements like "Dissent/Disagreement was not an option.", and about you being "severely punished". Those are serious allegations since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech. Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you? How were you or other members of the community "severely punished"?
-
(part 2 of 2)
"Moonrocks"
So to review, I'm claiming here that a 1973 experiment on supposed moon rocks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703773901907) is an important consideration when questioning how large the conspiracy needs to be. This experiment was conducted by researchers at the Department of Chemistry and The Radiation Center, Oregon State University. In this experiment, it was found lunar rock samples provided by NASA and the Russian Luna programs are "nearly identical in chemical composition". The Luna samples were provided by Professor Alexander Vinogradox of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
Because the rocks had nearly identical chemical compositions, they came from the same source. If that source was not the moon, then you must consider not only what it took for the conspirators to ensure this experiment had the fake results they needed, but also the considerable risk they would be taking by involving so many people. I could go on a huge speculative rant about how large this operation would need to be, but I don't want this to get too long. FET proponents, I hope when you see something like this, you can at least understand how RET proponents can see the conspiracy as being absurd.
Radiometric dating
To review, Jack shared an article with which is part of his claim that radiometric dating does not work: https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html Apologies I cannot read through the entire thing, but I read the introduction and conclusion to get as much of an understanding as I could.
Jack, thank you for sharing this. It's interesting, but here are my problems with it:
1. It is not peer-reviewed and does not seem to be published in a journal
2. The author seems to be a creation scientist or at least references a creation scientist (Jon Covey, http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/author/joncoveyhotmail-com/) for source material. Creationism is an overt pseudoscience. Presenting unfalsifiable claims from the bible, relying on confirmation bias, and still calling these claims science is the definition of pseudoscience.
3. At best, this article invalidates specific instances of radiometric dating. It is illogical to assume that when one instance of a piece of technology breaks that therefore it will break in all circumstances
All of this being said, I've honestly forgotten why dating is relevant! The "moonrocks" point I made is focused on a chemical comparison between specimens.
"Space"
@Jack, you gave me a lot to think about here, which I appreciate. So to review, your initial claim was that "space" violates natural laws. You elaborated that the natural laws that are violated are the natural behavior of gas and energy as well as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In your explaination, you also invoked pascal's law and claimed gravity as we know it doesn't exist.
I'm not a physicist. So I'll probably botch this, but here goes!
We can start by thinking about a thermos cup. It's a partial vacuum that we can hold in our hands. The reason the air doesn't rush in, as you eloquently explained, is the barrier. So I can understand why "space" seems counterintuitive. Why doesn't the atmosphere rush into space since there is no barrier?
The short answer is the higher the altitude, the lower the pressure. You can think about this a couple of ways. One is mathematical, with the barometric formula (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Barometric_formula). But even just by simple measurement, we know that air pressure changes with elevation. This is how pressure altimeters work (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Altimeter), which planes depend on.
So the higher the elevation, the lower the pressure, the thinner the air, the fewer the particles, and eventually you can start calling it "space". There is no absolute cutoff between the atmosphere and "space". It's just a gradual decline in the number of particles. I don't think there's any formal definition or threshold for when we call it space, but I do know that it's technically a partial vacuum, not an absolute vacuum, of course.
So then you present this problem:
To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort
There is no continuous work being done to preserve our partial vacuum in our thermos cups. No energy is being expended. The pressure that the outer atmosphere exerts on the wall of the cup is equal and opposite to the pressure exerted from the rigid body of the thermos cup wall. The system is in equilibrium.
Likewise, the entire atmosphere is in a pressure equilibrium. If you imagine a single air particle, you may ask why it doesn't travel into the lower-pressure "space" above it. The answer is that the force of gravity pushes it downwards. This is why, on average, air particles are moving up as much as they are moving down, and the atmosphere as a whole doesn't fizzle out into space. And because the force of gravity decreases with elevation (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation), the pressure does too.
So to respond to some more of your specific claims:
The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure.
Pressure changes both vertically and horizontally, as measured by pressure altimeters and barometers.
When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it. That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area. It's a law. It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.
I think I am mostly with you with all of this. However, the 2nd law allows for entropy to remain constant when in equilibrium. And when we consider gravity, we do indeed have an equilibrium.
This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law. If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly. I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.
Most of our small scale, in-hand experiments (like with a thermos cup) will not have a significant variation in gravity across the vertical plane. So we get to see a system where atmospheric pressure and the normal force of any rigid bodies are the only ones that matter, without any significant variation in the force of gravity across the "altitude" of a few inches.
If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law.
Pascal's law is about incompressible fluids. Air is compressible. I also am struggling to understand where Pascal's law fits here.
This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".
I don't know what you mean about Pascal's law having to do with the weight of the fluid. Pascal's law is defined as:
delta p = pg * delta h
p is pressure, g is acceleration due to gravity, h is the height of the fluid
Without going into detail here, we can already see the weight of the fluid is not involved. And again, Pascal's law is about incompressible fluids and air is compressible.
And just a side note, I would completely support an experiment that measures the force of gravity across altitudes.
Spacesuits
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.
There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits. The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling. The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.
1. What is your evidence that we didn't test spacesuits in vacuums? There are videos showing we did.
2. As of now, it looks like we debunked Mark Antony's claims about spacesuits. Here, Jack, it sounds like you are just saying "we have more spacesuit claims!". If you do, that's great! But first, can you acknowledge that we debunked the previous ones?
Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.
Apollo (and mercury before them) was breathing the straight 100% O2 with caution to the wind and very much 0 f*cks. The "right stuff" people are cowboys - space monkeys and stick jockeys; they do stupid and reckless things by profession. Yet more than one of them have felt, uncharacteristically for the profession AND the era, they had to publicly denounce the ability and competency of the apollo program. It looked a bit too risky, even to hardened adrenaline addicted professional daredevils...
Sorry, can you explain your point here like I'm 5? I can't tell if you are countering our debunk of Mark Antony's claim about the oxygen levels or if you are just making a joke xD
Relevent quote from @jack44556677:
The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist. The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss. The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level). In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.
Sorry, I followed your logic all the way through but I think I missed the part where "space" couldn't exist!
Spheres in Nature
Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground. The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round.
I've been thinking about this too, and I think it's a really good point. Especially bubbles, which are not just round but spherical!
Round-ish, possibly. Spherical, essentially never. But this whole approach is garbage. The "elegance" of the platonic shapes has no bearing on reality, nor are aesthetics a good way to determine science from pseudoscience.
This is not at all a garbage approach. First of all, the Earth in RET is not a perfect sphere, nobody is talking about perfect spheres! Secondly, you're putting up a straw man when you say he is talking about aesthetics. You yourself recently said the vacuum of space doesn't exist because "nature abhors it", which turned out to be your way of introducing a much more detailed argument. Similarly, bringing up the existence of round objects such as raindrops, bubbles, and other planets/moons/stars is valid (but needs to be substantiated).
In a 3 dimensional space, a sphere is a shape in which all points are the same distance from the center point. Therefore, this shape has the lowest surface area to volume ratio possible. When soap bubbles form, they become spherical for this exact reason. Observing this principle with bubbles is a perfectly reasonable approach to understanding the shape of the world considering that a bunch of matter in space clumping together by the force of gravity will form a sphere due to the same principle of reducing surface area.
Misc.
The tides are in no way caused by the moon. The frequency, timing, location, and amplitude all do not correspond causally (or otherwise in most all cases) to the moon nor any other light in the sky.
What is your source of this information?
I know that water's surface does not curve at rest and this makes the vast majority of the water on earth (+70% by our estimates), essentially, flat.
Using your own rhetoric, you do not know this. You have not measured the curvature of the Earth's oceans, so you can not make this claim!
By the way Jack, I'm sorry I couldn't respond to everything but I fully support you in your experiments to directly measure the world's shape, and I think the ring "theory" is fun to think about and hope you keep us updated with these lines of research. And if there's anything important I missed in your responses, please feel free to let me know!
Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.
I insist :) I'm very curious about what you, Mark, and others think about them.
I posted a video of an ex-CIA senior agent refer to NASA as "Not A Space Agency" and that "this is where the bulk of the mind control happens" and yet time and time again people ignore it and want to discuss my comment on the rockets.
Thank you for saying this! I admit, I was going to miss this one and that's some serious bias on my part. So I did a quick search of him online and not a ton came up. I did find what seemed to be his personal website (https://robertdavidsteele.com/) as well as this: https://america-wake-up.com/2020/11/16/9471/, are these all the same guy? What was his position in the CIA? Is he just making claims, or has he brought any physical evidence to the table? I would gladly engage with you more about him, but I don't really know enough about him. For now, it just seems like a guy who claims to have worked in the CIA and saying things without any physical evidence. I'm not saying that's not worth considering, but is my description accurate?
Also, @Mark Antony, speaking of selective evidence and confirmation bias, I don't think you ever responded to my reply#47. (Though I know the conversation was getting a bit overwhelming at that point, so I can completely understand missing it). We were discussing your claim that space suits are evidence against NASA's expeditions, and I had compiled some counter-claims there. Stack and Longitube had also supported what I said in replies #48 and #50, and I unless I missed it, I don't think you have responded yet. You might have seen the section in this reply above where I responded to Jack's comments on that conversation. Do you think our debunk holds true? let us know :)
Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly?
Agreed. Also, airlines who fly around Antarctica measure the length between points in that region those distances are incompatible with Antarctica being a ring.
-
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sat4I5e5bZA
This is a nice demo of force generation for the rockets / Newton's third discussion.
There is clear bias in that experiment. He only flashes the fans on for a second when the panels are not connected but then powers them to full speed when they are connected. Regardless of this, it doesn't prove that rockets work in space as the car is propelled by the air pressure build up behind the panels, hence the car is still pushing off air.
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.
You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.
For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws. I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it. I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.
Incorrect science? The cornerstone of your argument relies on the assumption that because Newton's 3rd law is satisfied, his other laws are redundant. Why even discuss momentum when you haven't resolved your forces at the point of contact? You and your comrades brought up magically appearing walls, gun recoil, grenades along with videos of crude experiments that, despite trying to illustrate a fundamental idea, couldn't do so without obvious and shameless bias. This is why I am reluctant to talk about it.
I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece
You didn't address Newton's laws at all, the inconvenient 1st law was violated on every turn!
Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws.
I was reluctant to start the debate (for the reasons above around Newton's 1st law) but you seem adamant on ending it, which says a lot about the respective comfort levels with the discussion. I'm not here to convince you of anything either, you have clearly made up your mind. The lurkers and members in pursuit of knowledge need to see the holes in the logic of space flight. This debate is absolutely not over.
I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself. However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time.
How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.
Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle. None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.
How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air? You are drawing assumptions based on opinion rather than conclusions based on experimentation.
If a ball were thrown away from you in space it would stop accelerating immediately after it left your hand. The reason for that would be, no force, no acceleration (F=MA). After the ball left your hand it would continue forever in the direction thrown. In order for it to slow down it would have to be influenced by a force external. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in order for a ball to 'run out of energy' it would have to give that energy to some other mass, but in space there's no other mass to give it to. There would be no force external.
This paragraph serves to disprove the ability of a rocket to maneuver in space.
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
This is not the case.
If we are in space, outside of LEO, frictional forces are minimal. If you are holding a heavy bowling ball that is 1/10th your mass and you push it away from you, you will accelerate in the opposite direction at 1/10 the rate. This is not a violation of any of Newton's Laws. His 3rd Law loosely states: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people get confused on this one because they think the action/reaction forces happen on the same object, but they don't. The Action here is you pushing on bowling ball with a Force. The Reaction is the bowling ball pushing on you with an equal sized force. Your acceleration and the bowling ball acceleration are not equal because you have 10x the mass, 10x the inertia. This also conserves momentum. If it is in space, the bowling ball when then keep its velocity, never speeding up or slowing down or turning until on 'outside' force acted on it.
The relative movement between the spaceman and the bowling ball is irrelevant as it is internal. What do I mean when I say it's internal? The relative velocity between the spaceman and the ball is zero therefore the acceleration is zero, if the acceleration is zero then the net force on the system (spaceman and ball) is zero -> F=ma -> F=0. Therefore you simply cannot acquire an external force from something that forms part of your system.
Pushing off the ball achieves nothing other than creating a displacement between yourself and the ball. Your speed and direction relative to the earth remains unchanged. An unfortunate reality for the spaceman - he can throw it as hard as he wants, it changes nothing. The same applies to NASA's rocket.
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
This assumes the ball is accelerating forever relative to the spaceman. To achieve this the spaceman would have to exert infinite work/energy on the ball (w=fs, e=w/t) which is physically impossible.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.
I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
I mean no offense either but I think it is you who is confused here.
-
(part 2 of 2)
Spacesuits
1. What is your evidence that we didn't test spacesuits in vacuums? There are videos showing we did.
2. As of now, it looks like we debunked Mark Antony's claims about spacesuits. Here, Jack, it sounds like you are just saying "we have more spacesuit claims!". If you do, that's great! But first, can you acknowledge that we debunked the previous ones?
Whoa, hold your horses! Nothing about the spacesuits was debunked. As jack mentioned earlier in the thread, even at 5-6psi the pressure differential between the inside and outside would render the suit incredibly rigid and cumbersome to maneuver. There is no footage of apollo astronauts in the hinged suits that were linked, all the footage shows them in flexible fabric suits. And even though NASA claim modern era suits have hinges/bearings - none of the footage suggests this is so. See from 1:52 in this ISS repair video:
https://youtu.be/_l9SL5F4R84?t=112
Her fluid hand and arm movements clearly indicate no hinges at the joints.
Sorry, can you explain your point here like I'm 5? I can't tell if you are countering our debunk of Mark Antony's claim about the oxygen levels or if you are just making a joke xD
The point I made on the hyperoxia I will wave the white flag on. Pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure would cause hyperoxia but not at lower pressures. Reading up on scuba diving science confirmed this satisfactorily for me.
Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.
I insist :) I'm very curious about what you, Mark, and others think about them.
All of these technologies use dishes and antennae that are firmly fixed on the ground. The convenience of the earth being flat means that aeroplanes have a direct line of sight to the dishes which is important for radio transmission. Antennae use different technology that manipulates the natural voltage differences at different altitudes. A technology created by the greatest inventor ever - Nikola Tesla.
-
Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle. None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.
How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air? You are drawing assumptions based on opinion rather than conclusions based on experimentation.
A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2RhQdHoZ1I
-
A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.
Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.
-
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sat4I5e5bZA
This is a nice demo of force generation for the rockets / Newton's third discussion.
There is clear bias in that experiment. He only flashes the fans on for a second when the panels are not connected but then powers them to full speed when they are connected. Regardless of this, it doesn't prove that rockets work in space as the car is propelled by the air pressure build up behind the panels, hence the car is still pushing off air.
This response demonstrates nothing except your inability to understand the relations between Newtons third and rocketry.
-
A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.
Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.
How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?
The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?
I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.
-
I had to research and learn quite a bit for this reply!
Whoa, hold your horses! Nothing about the spacesuits was debunked. As jack mentioned earlier in the thread, even at 5-6psi the pressure differential between the inside and outside would render the suit incredibly rigid and cumbersome to maneuver.
I think you're correct that the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the suit renders it rigid. So the conversation here comes down to the existence of hinges in the suits if I understand correctly.
There is no footage of apollo astronauts in the hinged suits that were linked, all the footage shows them in flexible fabric suits.
Do you mean like this, a the 1:00:00 mark?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3oXFFISI0&ab_channel=NASA
And even though NASA claim modern era suits have hinges/bearings
They also explained the apollo era suits hinges(joints) in the 1971 Apollo Extravehicular Mobiity Unit. Volume 1: System Description (see here https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf)
The pages themselves aren't numbered, but it's the 33rd page in the pdf. It reads:
The torso, upper and lower arms, legs, boots, and restraint
cables are integrated to form the TLSA pressurizable vessel.
This vessel includes convoluted joints which permit low-torque
body movements and a near-constant-volume gas displacement
within the PGA during normal joint flexure.
- none of the footage suggests this is so [(that modern era suits have hinges/bearing)]. See from 1:52 in this ISS repair video:
[https://youtu.be/_l9SL5F4R84]
Her fluid hand and arm movements clearly indicate no hinges at the joints.
Peggy Whitson here must be wearing the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Extravehicular_Mobility_Unit). This documentation here (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/188963main_Extravehicular_Mobility_Unit.pdf) mentions that there is a wrist joint and an elbow joint. When it comes to fingers, it explains:
The two gloves have fingertips of silicone rubber that permit
some degree of sensitivity in handling tools and
other objects
This is in line with the video you shared, in which she is able to rotate her wrists as well as maneuver her fingers to a limited degree.
Do you think it's fair for me to call this one debunked now, or is there still a flaw in what I'm saying somewhere?
All of these technologies use dishes and antennae that are firmly fixed on the ground. The convenience of the earth being flat means that aeroplanes have a direct line of sight to the dishes which is important for radio transmission. Antennae use different technology that manipulates the natural voltage differences at different altitudes. A technology created by the greatest inventor ever - Nikola Tesla.
Interesting. I didn't know much telecommunication tech before, so I'm reading up on it now. So my understanding is that cell towers and satellite dishes transmit to and receive from communication satellites.
So if what you are saying is that communications satellites aren't real, here a few problems we have to solve:
1. If you are working on installing a satellite dish, pointing it towards a geosynchronous communication satellite is a regular part of the process. Here's an app I found that helps people do it (https://www.dishpointer.com/).
2. Here is a satellite dish troubleshoot guide, in which realigning it point at the communications satellite is a part of the process (https://satgist.com/how-to-fix-satellite-dish-signal-no-signal/).
3. You can see satellites and the ISS yourself through telescopes (https://telescopebuddy.com/can-you-see-satellites-with-a-telescope/).
Very curious about how you think about these problems.
-
I had to research and learn quite a bit for this reply!
The two gloves have fingertips of silicone rubber that permit
some degree of sensitivity in handling tools and
other objects
This is in line with the video you shared, in which she is able to rotate her wrists as well as maneuver her fingers to a limited degree.
Do you think it's fair for me to call this one debunked now, or is there still a flaw in what I'm saying somewhere?
You can draw whatever conclusions you want from your own research and if my arguments haven't convinced you of anything then that's fine. However, using the word "debunked" (a word I hate) assumes you have proven me wrong and that the space suits are feasible. I disagree with this. I tend to approach the space suit argument giving NASA the benefit of the doubt with the details they give us. But even so, I think the space suits are still very much implausible i.e. a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid.
Putting NASA's science aside, my real opinion of how space suits and any vessel for that matter would perform in space is far different. Assuming there is only a 6psi pressure differential in the suits is a huge and unrealistic assumption in a practical sense (even for NASA's standards it's a bit of a joke). Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth. Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcaCMNY.png)
Here's the description for a high vacuum:
High vacuum is vacuum where the MFP of residual gases is longer than the size of the chamber or of the object under test. High vacuum usually requires multi-stage pumping and ion gauge measurement.
In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum. I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states. Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it. These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.
All of these technologies use dishes and antennae that are firmly fixed on the ground. The convenience of the earth being flat means that aeroplanes have a direct line of sight to the dishes which is important for radio transmission. Antennae use different technology that manipulates the natural voltage differences at different altitudes. A technology created by the greatest inventor ever - Nikola Tesla.
Interesting. I didn't know much telecommunication tech before, so I'm reading up on it now. So my understanding is that cell towers and satellite dishes transmit to and receive from communication satellites.
So if what you are saying is that communications satellites aren't real, here a few problems we have to solve:
1. If you are working on installing a satellite dish, pointing it towards a geosynchronous communication satellite is a regular part of the process. Here's an app I found that helps people do it (https://www.dishpointer.com/).
2. Here is a satellite dish troubleshoot guide, in which realigning it point at the communications satellite is a part of the process (https://satgist.com/how-to-fix-satellite-dish-signal-no-signal/).
3. You can see satellites and the ISS yourself through telescopes (https://telescopebuddy.com/can-you-see-satellites-with-a-telescope/).
Very curious about how you think about these problems.
I haven't looked into how these technologies work that much. Cell towers and dishes communicate with themselves, not with orbiting satellites. But thats just my own opinion. As I stated before I am only speaking on behalf of myself, I do not represent any flat earth organisation nor do I have any affiliation with the flat earth society. (I haven't even read a single page of the wiki, sorry guys :P )
-
In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum.
Why do you think it would explode? I mean what has specifically led you to that conclusion? You're talking about a pressure differential. We have all kinds of things to handle from the extreme to mundane differentials - from a sub that can go down almost 11,000m into the Mariana Trench at 1,086 bars to the pressure cooker on my counter top at 1.8 bars to good old Earth at 1 bar. Space is at almost 0 bars. Why does space seem to be such an explosive environment?
I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states.
What has led you to this understanding? Why would there be an "unusual chemical reaction"?
Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it.
They maintain temperature control through insulation and essentially HVAC systems. What disastrous effect are you envisioning?
These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.
It's not like they don't test this stuff. Interesting article here:
Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html
-
You can draw whatever conclusions you want from your own research and if my arguments haven't convinced you of anything then that's fine. However, using the word "debunked" (a word I hate) assumes you have proven me wrong and that the spacesuits are feasible. I disagree with this. I tend to approach the space suit argument by giving NASA the benefit of the doubt with the details they give us.
You're right, debunk is a mean word to use. Thanks for letting me know, I hope I can do better.
I just hope that given all the evidence we bring to the table, we can come to an agreement on whether it is feasible for NASA's spacesuits to work in the vacuum of space or not. This stuff is a hard science, not a soft science or social science. So in my view, there's little room to leave things open for interpretation. If we both follow the evidence and logic through, we ought to be able to come to a joint conclusion of some sort.
I'll let you respond to Stack's questions before I respond to the rest of your reply.
-
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?
...
This debate is absolutely not over.
I would agree, this is perhaps one to be split out because I also agree that the debate isn't over! It's related for sure, but maybe it's conflating with the other debate around space suits etc, let's see what the mods think. I've also read your replies and the debate you've had with stack. However, before I start I just want to acknowledge one thing, and that is that air has "something" to do with it, I'll grant you that much. Here on Earth when people throw things we are doing so in an atmosphere and so that does have some effect. Depending on surface area it can be negligible to significant. Jets need air, rockets don't, but we'll get onto that.
You seem to think though, that I'm basing everything on biased opinion and assumption rather than experimentation, but you couldn't be further from the truth. You also have no idea what my background is or who I've worked with in the past. As a result I do happen to have a reasonably good grasp of Newtons three laws of motion, and nowhere in anything I stated were any of them broken. In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law. The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law. I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.
I would recommend trying out the experiment that stack suggested. Back at school in physics class we carried our our own tests to show that air only has "something" to do with it, and also "nothing" to do with it. Back then it was done with 3 similarly sized aluminium balls (baking hemispheres taped together!) filled with different things to create different weights (air, water and lead). The base was a long board covered with ball-bearings upon which another board was placed on top which you sat on. This gave a very low rolling resistance. Based on your understanding that "air is everything", you would expect that you would move back an equal amount with each ball thrown. Each group carried out 10 throws of each ball, and guess what? The heavier the ball, the further back you were pushed. Take it to the extreme - a ball so heavy you can't move it. Push that and you will go backwards with maximum force. Do the same with a ball of aerogel and you are hardly going to move backwards at all. We also carried out a similar experiment with two objects of similar weight but vastly different surface areas. Based on your understanding, the one with the larger surface area would push us back more. Not the case. Within experimental error, both pushed back the same amount. In order for air resistance alone to cause you to be pushed back, you would need a significantly larger surface area in comparison.
To show that air had nothing to do with it, the teacher set up another experiment with a brass tube sealed at one end, a remotely triggerable spring, and a ball bearing. The ball was shot out of the brass tube at normal atmospheric pressure, and in a strong vacuum. Remember, being a spring there are no expanding gasses at play here. Again, based on your understanding there would be no recoil in the vacuum, but this was not the case. Recoil happened in air and in a vacuum. None of this is made up walls in space or whatever, it's just basic controlled experimentation.
With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly. The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.
As for rockets working in space, the following is a good, if technical guide as to what thrust is and why it works. In simple terms, pressure differences between the combustion chamber and the outside:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm)
Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose). As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum. His response? A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!". Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket. Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.
How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.
The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust. Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go. It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
This assumes the ball is accelerating forever relative to the spaceman. To achieve this the spaceman would have to exert infinite work/energy on the ball (w=fs, e=w/t) which is physically impossible.
I think the original use of the word acceleration may have been slightly misleading, and as such you may be seemingly confusing acceleration with velocity. The only time the astronaut and bowling ball are accelerated is while the astronaut is throwing it. Once the ball has left the astronauts hands they are both going to be traveling at a constant velocity (m/s as shown) until acted upon by another force. Constant velocity in a vacuum does not need an infinite amount of work/energy.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.
I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
I mean no offense either but I think it is you who is confused here.
In all fairness, based on what I've read, your understanding of the laws of motion are flawed, and this is why I wanted to address it because debating whether we've actually been into space or not to take photographs and video is one thing, but debating whether it's physically possible is quite another. It might be a completely innocent misunderstanding, or it might be that you choose to interpret the laws differently so that it makes space travel impossible which itself has other implications on FET and related conspiracies.
-
Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth. Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcaCMNY.png)
@Mark Antony, I would like to take whoever taught you number systems and boil that person slowly in oil for doing such a rotten job. Vacuums don’t just go from 1psi to 0psi? Actually, that table from Wikipedia shows that vacuums do, but the numbers given could be easily misunderstood from the way they are expressed.
A extremely high vacuum, from that table, is < 1x10-12 torr meaning less than a millionth of a millionth of a torr. But that’s still a higher pressure than zero. If it were < -1x10-12 then that would be less than minus a millionth of a millionth of a torr - a negative pressure, less than zero - which doesn’t exist!
The very low pressures listed in that table are indeed extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, but all are larger, however slightly, than the bottom row of the table, the perfect vacuum, which is precisely zero pressure. If you already know and understand this, please feel free to ignore it and forgive my misunderstanding you.
-
@stack
I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?
Not by itself, no. However the default position is best one of skepticism. Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.
Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction. If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.
I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that
That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.
And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance
There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.
There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.
It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.
Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense. It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality. We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification). They believe instead of know.
And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.
And you are most unlikely to. Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist. It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.
If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.
Ugh, I feel the opposite way. The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen. You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.
What government agency hasn't?
Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely. They are not to be trusted.
I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?
The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".
Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads. Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).
The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.
I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...
Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.
True, and vice versa!
There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.
Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.
As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations
Not to my knowledge. In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet. The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.
Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.
Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.
I don't really get this.
That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.
So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy.
Not really. The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.
I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.
They certainly exist. However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people. The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.
The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher. This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science. Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".
This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:
Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped! If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use. We don't do that, and never have.
-
@jack44556677
You repeatedly say things along the lines of "Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.". Now clearly there are things in this world that are easier to prove by yourself than others. Some things are so trivial and have been proven so many times by countless others that it's safe to take those as solid fact. Equally, there are things in this world that are almost impossible to prove by yourself with current technology and capabilities. The thing is though, a constant questioning of anything you can't see or touch or otherwise prove to yourself just creates a world in which everything conforms to your own narrative and interpretation of physical laws.
The obvious one here is space travel and getting to the Moon. You are unlikely in your lifetime to have the opportunity to adequately observe/experience this for yourself, so what would it take to give you adequate proof? China have just launched a mission to retrieve lunar material and bring it back to Earth. It's a man-made vehicle, travelling through the vacuum of space, using Newtons laws of motion to get it there and back. If this mission succeeds, will it just be considered yet another science fiction movie created by China's space program?
Regarding the "infinite partial vacuum of space", are you able to explain to us, in simple terms, why the 2nd law of thermodynamics and gas law are broken? What kind of system do you consider the universe that we live in? Open, closed or isolated? Some say it's neither because by definition the universe is everything. Others talk about the entire universe being isolated, but our observable universe being open. I'm intrigued as to your thoughts on this.
-
@stack
I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?
Not by itself, no. However the default position is best one of skepticism. Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.
Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction. If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.
Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. But not everything is so black & white as you would have it. There are many things that I can't prove for, to and by myself. For instance I can't perform, demonstrate, reproduce or even view in person a heart transplant operation, but I've read about them, seen videos about them, heard physicians talk about them and I'm sure they exist. I suppose I could enroll and train to become a heart transplant surgeon and experience it first hand. Seemingly as well I could train to be an astronaut and perhaps ride a rocket into space and experience that firsthand too. There's a lot of gray area in our world, not everything is binary.
I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that
That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.
I'm not sure what this particular outlier proves. That moon rocks don't exist? Or someone just decided to give a mock moon rock as a gift? So it's not a matter of ignoring an "outlier" it's just that the motive for the incident is unknown. It could be as grand as continuing to conceal the conceit of the "conspiracy" or something completely innocuous, if not disingenuous, as gifting someone a fake Rolex and saying it's real.
And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance
There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.
There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.
As for moon rocks, Apollo brought back a bunch as well as the soviets with their unmanned probes. And some have been found here in Antarctica and I was just reading about a recent one found in the Sahara. To some, that would be considered repeatedly and independently verified. But obviously to those less inclined, it wouldn't. Pick your poison.
It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.
Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense. It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality. We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification). They believe instead of know.
Again, with the all-or-nothing bit. Sure, some people choose to trust government unconditionally. Few and far between. And some with absolutely zero trust. However, there's a massive spectrum in between whether to trust all or trust nothing. To covid vax or to not covid vax is probably a good example. We're probably looking down the barrel of a governments distributed vaccine in the future. The level of willingness to partake will span that entire trust spectrum, no doubt, as folks make up their minds.
And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.
And you are most unlikely to. Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist. It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.
For one, you can spare the pedantry. Everyone here is familiar with the phrase and it's meaning. And obviously it's a two way street. A little further down you go headlong into finding what you think are "proper explanations" according to your world view that perhaps don't exist. As well as debunking in a similar manner. But I'll get into that in a second.
An aside, it would be super helpful if you actually used the quote function here like 95% of folks do. It's super helpful when you pluck out one sentence from someone's paragraph from a week ago, address it and the responder, me for example, can then just click on the quote link and zip right back to the full context of what was written. Instead I had to go hunting for it. In this case I was referring specifically to the many hoax compilation videos, and more specifically, the astronaut in a spacesuit test that went awry. Necessary context.
If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.
Ugh, I feel the opposite way. The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen. You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.
I am not required to interpret it as pareidolia. Where do you get that notion? And what makes your "objective evaluation" greater than mine? You've said over and over again that a lot of the evidence for space and space flight, manned or unmanned is not "repeatedly and independently verified". To use the rat on mars as an example, what's your repeated and independent verification that it is a rat? Perhaps you're required to believe it is a rat because your cognitive dissonance only allows for that explanation because you believe that it's impossible for a photograph on the surface of Mars to exist. Perhaps someone with your perspective automatically assumes the image is a fakery of some sort because it comes from NASA, part of the untrustworthy MIC, before you even see the rat and begin to apply your objective evaluation to it. That doesn't seem objective to me.
What government agency hasn't?
Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely. They are not to be trusted.
Again, see the spectrum.
I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?
The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".
I believe the phrase you are looking for is not "nequaquam vacuum", but "Horror vacui". Which is "attributed to Aristotle, who articulated a belief, later criticized by the atomism of Epicurus and Lucretius, that nature contains no vacuums because the denser surrounding material continuum would immediately fill the rarity of an incipient void." And it is not a law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)
Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads. Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).
What specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law) makes space a fantasy/mythology. You can't just start throwing around laws and saying, "See? Can't happen. Laws."
The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.
I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...
What's your objective criteria for how fake or not it looks?
Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.
True, and vice versa!
The preponderance of evidence is that it's not CGI. If you can point to specifically what are the "tells" that's it's CGI, then maybe there's a conversation there.
There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.
Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.
What should it look like? How is it different than other examples you have seen? How is the ISS too large? By what specific measurements lead you to that conclusion? Specificity is helpful here. Not just saying you think so. Your certainty isn't based upon anything other than your opinion. Which is fine, but unremarkable.
As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations
Not to my knowledge. In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet. The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.
Perhaps not to your knowledge.
Vomit Comet: Training Flights for Astronauts | Space
"Complete weightlessness lasts approximately 25 seconds. Passengers who experience a simulation of Martian gravity — about a third of Earth's gravity — last about 30 seconds, while those simulating lunar gravity — about a sixth of Earth's gravity — last about 40 seconds."
https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html
Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.
Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.
There's evidence of space writ large that's even non-MIC based. The GoFast amateur rocket team set the record in 2004 at an altitude of 72 miles. It made it to "space" as we know it.
I don't really get this.
That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.
So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy.
Not really. The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.
I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.
They certainly exist. However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people. The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.
The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher. This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science. Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".
From a semantics perspective, yes, the conspiracy has nothing to do with what the actual shape of the world is. What the conspiracy does have to with is the concealing of what the true shape of the world may be. There's a definite distinction there. The non-conspiracy perspective depicts the shape of the earth as a Globe. Period. In order to dismiss all of the non-conspiracy perspective evidence and dismiss the globe depiction, there must be a conspiracy. Enter FET and the necessity for FET to dismiss space/space endeavors because they all depict the incorrect shape of the earth. In order to dismiss all of that, a conspiracy is required. Simple as that. You literally can't have FET without the conspiracy in the modern age. At least I've never come across a singe FET proponent that does not believe in the conspiracy.
This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:
Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped! If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use. We don't do that, and never have.
First you thought they never started testing. Now you're saying they stopped testing. Both are wrong. They never stopped. They still do manned space suit vacuum testing today. Here's an article on it you may find interesting.
Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
"The participants are inside the NASA Johnson Space Center's 11-foot thermal vacuum chamber, which is commonly used for spacesuit testing. According to NASA, the chamber can include components such as a treadmill or systems for "crew weight relief" to simulate the microgravity astronauts encounter in space."
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html
-
Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads. Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).
What specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law) makes space a fantasy/mythology. You can't just start throwing around laws and saying, "See? Can't happen. Laws."
Just to avoid redundancy, Jack has already explained his position on this in this reply: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg225138#msg225138
In my rough estimation, his view here seems to boil down to that he is trying to imagine how physics would work if the force of gravity doesn't exist. But please check out his response for the full explanation in case I didn't do it justice.
I responded to his view here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg225731#msg225731 (in the "space" section), and he still hasn't responded to this
I'm afraid this thread has split into multiple parallel conversations and one thing I've been thinking about is how to bring it all back together or organize it in some way.
-
Sorry to be a broken record for the thousandth time but I want to keep this thread balanced and ideally the number of replies by both "sides" roughly even. I also want to make sure none of the side conversations are getting buried by new replies.
The majority of my last huge post with all the sections was directed towards Jack and he hasn't had the chance to respond to that yet, and we're also waiting for Mark Antony to respond to Stack's latest post about space suits so I can then jump in and respond about that. I'm honestly not keeping track of the conversation about rockets though it's interesting to read.
Let's let them both catch up at their own pace before we put more on their plates? It's a ton of information to get through, especially when you are debating, and we are in no rush.
-
I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't :P
A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.
Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.
How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?
The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?
I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.
In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law. The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law. I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.
With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly. The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.
The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust. Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go. It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.
I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.
Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:
Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?
Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.
It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!
The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.
It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?
There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .
The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.
they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time
But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.
Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose). As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum. His response? A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!". Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket. Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.
I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.
Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth. Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:
(https://i.imgur.com/gcaCMNY.png)
@Mark Antony, I would like to take whoever taught you number systems and boil that person slowly in oil for doing such a rotten job. Vacuums don’t just go from 1psi to 0psi? Actually, that table from Wikipedia shows that vacuums do, but the numbers given could be easily misunderstood from the way they are expressed.
A extremely high vacuum, from that table, is < 1x10-12 torr meaning less than a millionth of a millionth of a torr. But that’s still a higher pressure than zero. If it were < -1x10-12 then that would be less than minus a millionth of a millionth of a torr - a negative pressure, less than zero - which doesn’t exist!
The very low pressures listed in that table are indeed extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, but all are larger, however slightly, than the bottom row of the table, the perfect vacuum, which is precisely zero pressure. If you already know and understand this, please feel free to ignore it and forgive my misunderstanding you.
The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential ::)
-
I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't :P
A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.
Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.
How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?
The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?
I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.
In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law. The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law. I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.
With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly. The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.
The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust. Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go. It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.
I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.
Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:
Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?
Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.
It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!
The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.
Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.
The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:
(https://i.imgur.com/vpcbTdq.gif)
Full video here:
https://youtu.be/D4j5bcaV2Ws
The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.
-
The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential ::)
Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.
Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?
Here’s a simple investigation you can do into vacuums. Get a long length (more than 50 feet) of clear plastic hose, fill it with water and have it dunked in a large bucket of water. Seal one end to prevent air getting back in (use a bung or maybe a strong clamp) and lift the sealed end above the water, way up, 40 feet above the water in the bucket but make sure the other end stays under the water. Amazingly, the water in the hose will only rise about 34 feet above the water in the bucket and any hose above that height will be empty. What’s in that empty length of pipe between water and bung? A vacuum.
Think about that before trying the same investigation up in the mountains (if it’s within reach) at something like 10,000ft. Now the water will not rise higher in the pipe than about 23 feet. What has changed? The pipe, bung, bucket and water are the same, but the vacuum can only support a 23ft column of water. What has changed is the air pressure. The water in the pipe is not supported by the strength of the vacuum, but by the outside air pressure; 14.7psi at sea level and about 10psi at 10,000ft above sea level.
Do try this at home!
-
@ Mark,
Can we just look at that vacuum thing. You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens. I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further.
Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure. Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi. Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum.
Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi. Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures. Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet. Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive. The pressure up there is is around 5 psi.
Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi. Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure.
The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth. Its not a big deal.
And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces? Its just a matter of pressure differential. 15 psi. The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that. You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop.
-
I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't :P
We appreciate the commitment Mark ;)
I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.
I don't think it's really manipulating anything, and in principle has nothing to do with rockets either. Newtons laws have been in force (pardon the pun!) since before they were discovered by Newton himself, and well before rockets were in use. The effects of Newtons laws were observed when cannons were fired etc. They may not have understood why the effect we call recoil happened, but it happened and they accounted for it. The only reason we use an example of throwing something heavy like a bowling ball or medicine ball is because it's easy for people to grasp.
Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:
Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?
Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.
It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!
Excellent, a good example to discuss. The thing here is the sheer complexity of forces and motion involved - I looked up a paper on this and there were reams of very long and complex formulas! When the bow is released and the arrow is shot, there is forward motion of the limbs which ultimately vibrate backwards and forwards, and the arrow shoots forwards. The string also vibrates and absorbs some of that energy, and yes, your hand holding the bow absorbs some of that energy.
The key thing here is the term "recoil", and while a bow or crossbow does experience recoil, it's mechanics are different and nowhere near as pronounced as you'd get with a gun (which is analogous to this example here - the gunpowder represents the stored energy of the bow, and the bullet represents the arrow). With a very efficient bow like a compound bow, the effect of recoil is minimal. With recurve bows and crossbows, you get more recoil. The lighter the bow and the heavier the arrow, the more recoil you get.
With an empty bow you can even get "reverse recoil" where there is only forward motion due to the mechanics of the limbs and string. So yes, if there is sufficient energy transfer to overcome rolling resistance on Earth, you absolutely can move on a skateboard by shooting an arrow of sufficient mass. Remove the human element like in the experiment stack showed, you can clearly see that stored energy in the elastic launches the "arrow" forwards and the "bow" backwards.
The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.
As you said, there really is no difference, it's just about frame of reference and Newton's laws don't care if you are stationary or moving. I just find it much easier to visualise and actually observe the effects if you have a static system to start with and then see one part move backwards and one part move forwards, as opposed to a moving system where there is only a change in their relative velocities - much harder to see and quantify.
It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?
I said constant velocity unless acted on by another force, which in space could mean collisions with the few molecules and particles out there, asteroids, other planets, comets, stars etc.
To be clear in your question, are you asking at what point the ball stops accelerating when you throw it? That answer to that - as soon as it leaves your hands. This has nothing to do with space or a vacuum. Here on Earth if you throw a ball, the only time it is being accelerated is while it is in your hands. As soon as it leaves your hands it starts to slow down (decelerates) due to air resistance and eventually stops when it hits the ground a rolls to a halt due to friction.
Thow a ball in space and it's the same thing, it's only accelerating while it is in your hands. However, unlike on Earth, in the vacuum of space there is no air resistance or gravity to cause it to significantly slow down, so it just keeps going at whatever speed/velocity it was going when it left your hands. Yes it will slow down/decelerate eventually, but would take an extremely long time.
You asked at the end what is preventing this acceleration, which is what leads me to think you are getting things mixed up. The answer to what is preventing any further acceleration once the ball has left my hands is Newton's laws. It's not going to accelerate/move any faster unless something else causes it to. It's either going to stay at the same speed or gradually slow down over an extremely long period of time.
There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .
In simple terms, correct, and unfortunately I'm going to go back to the "throwing a bowling ball on a chair" model. When I'm sat on that chair holding the ball, the muscles in my arm and the mass of that bowling ball represent a store of energy, much like the fuel in a rocket. You could say at this time, we are all part of one system. When I throw the bowling ball, I accelerate it away from me and at some point it leaves my hands. The ball thereafter is external to "me", but with respect to the system it's still part of the whole energy transfer that took place. Make sense? No energy was created or destroyed, and the laws of motion were respected.
The key is Newton's 3rd law. When I "push" onto the ball, the ball is also "pushing" back onto me with exactly the same force. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and my school experiment demonstrated that nicely. I'm heavier than the ball so I don't move as far, which you can calculate using his 2nd law.
A rocket burning its fuel and creating a massive pressure difference to shoot exhaust gases out of the nozzle at high velocities is completely analogous. The rocket "pushes" onto the exhaust gases with the same force that the exhaust "pushes" on the rocket, ultimately causing it to move in the opposite direction. Those exhaust gases are external to the rocket body, but not the entire system, to be a bit more clear on things.
But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.
Just like throwing a heavy ball sat on a chair, rockets in space respect all three of Newton's laws. Why do you say maintaining his 1st law is physically impossible? For now just forget space and vacuums and rockets then to keep things down to Earth, literally. Have you actually done the experiment of throwing balls of differing weight but the same area, and observed the effects of motion (i.e. ball goes forwards, you go backwards?) If not, then I strongly suggest you try it out to see for yourself that not only does air have nothing to do with it, but also all three laws are respected.
His 1st law basically states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless a resultant force acts upon it, and that an object at rest will remain at rest etc. Agreed? As I explained earlier, when it comes to throwing bowling balls and things like recoil and rockets, his 3rd law is what preserves the 1st. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Like I said, when you push against something, it is also effectively pushing back against you with the same force. When I throw the ball, I push against it and it moves forward at a rate determined by the 2nd law. At the same time the ball pushes back against me and I move backwards, again at a rate determined by the 2nd law.
You only have to look at the experiment stack showed to clearly see that to start with, the system was static. After the energy was release and the "arrow" shot forwards, the "bow" moved backwards - no laws broken. The surface area of those things was very small, and they were relatively very heavy, so clearly they were not pushing off against air.
I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.
That's fair enough, but even here on Earth you don't seem to believe the experiments that are being performed are behaving exactly according to Newton's laws without saying air has everything to do with it. Having done the experiments myself at school, under pretty well controlled conditions, I can confidently say that the only things that influenced the amount we moved back was the weight of the object being ejected and the rate at which it was ejected at (which was kept as constant as realistically possible being eager beavers!).
F = MA
All air does is make things less efficient than they would be in a vacuum.
-
The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential ::)
Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.
Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?
Do try this at home!
I appreciate the mathematical demonstration but you are making the very assumption I am saying is flawed, that there is a 5psi pressure differential no matter how powerful the vacuum. This is an absurd assumption with no disrespect. You really can't talk about these vacuums without taking energy or even wall stresses into account.
Lets say you have a syringe like below:
(https://i.imgur.com/PW7oDyE.png)
For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further. Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further but now the steel tube collapses so you have to replace it and reinforce with outer ribs for support. You then get an army tank that pulls the plunger further. Each foot of distance the plunger gets pulled will require an exponentially higher amount of energy to do so. It will get to a point where no vehicle or combination of vehicles will be powerful enough to pull the plunger further. You are also getting closer to material limitations where there simply won't be materials strong enough to maintain the volume of vacuum. There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.
@ Mark,
Can we just look at that vacuum thing. You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens. I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further.
Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure. Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi. Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum.
Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi. Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures. Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet. Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive. The pressure up there is is around 5 psi.
Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi. Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure.
The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth. Its not a big deal.
And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces? Its just a matter of pressure differential. 15 psi. The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that. You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop.
What altitude/ambient pressure you are at has nothing to do with it, that's an oxygen supply problem. Snorkelling is different as you have to take a low pressure to an area of higher pressure. Organisms can survive deep down because they have no body cavities that can be crushed, they are more or less incompressible using nutrient exchange through fluids to survive.
You are trivialising the magnitude of these pressure differentials. They cannot be compared to everyday objects on earth.
-
Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.
The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:
(https://i.imgur.com/vpcbTdq.gif)
Full video here:
https://youtu.be/D4j5bcaV2Ws
The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.
I appreciate you taking the time to find these demonstrations, they are hard to find but interesting and I do enjoy seeing them. Don't get me wrong, I have a complete open mind about all of this, I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.
While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.
-
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.
Your use of space being 1000 to 1000000+ times stronger than a high vacuum on Earth is over-dramatising it. It's like somebody trying to get close to absolute zero, one group getting to within 0.0001K and another group getting to within 0.0000001K and then saying one is 1000 times colder than the other. In principle it is, but in reality they are hardly any different to each other compared to the scale of what 293K represents, which is a comfy room temperature. Same with such high vacuums. Yes, one might be 1000000 times "stronger", but compared to 1 atmosphere they are as near as damnit the same as each other (I know they aren't the same, but hope you understand what I'm trying to say).
Besides, in space it's not about absolute pressures, just relative pressures, and the suits are pressurised accordingly.
While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.
How is that the same as pushing off the ground? The only thing providing any propulsion is the elastic. All those beads do is offer resistance to motion. If that experiment were carried out with things suspended in air from strings, would you believe the results or claim that they were pushing off the strings? Until you can accept how Newton's laws actually work, the whole rocket debate is moot - and that's kinda' what I'm driving at.
-
Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.
The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:
(https://i.imgur.com/vpcbTdq.gif)
Full video here:
https://youtu.be/D4j5bcaV2Ws
The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.
I appreciate you taking the time to find these demonstrations, they are hard to find but interesting and I do enjoy seeing them. Don't get me wrong, I have a complete open mind about all of this, I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.
While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.
How exactly are the beads providing a propelling force? All the beads are doing is providing a low friction means by which the sled can move across. Imagine if the beads were removed and the bottom of the pan had a thin layer of ice instead. Would you say the ice is providing the force that is pushing the sled in the two opposite directions? Further still, instead of beads or ice, put little tiny wheels on the bottom of the sled, just like a skateboard. And in doing so, you now have a tabletop version of the skateboard/medicine ball demonstration. Same exact concept. Would you say the wheels now are providing the propelling force?
As you can clearly see, there is nothing equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off as there is nothing touching the ground that is doing any pushing, in opposite directions, no less. The only energy/force is in the rubber bands transferred to the sled and bar and they, in turn, act accordingly as expected and predicted by Newton's Laws.
-
While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare.
I still have a ton of catching up to do since this tread moves so fast. But I wanna jump in here real quick about a few things:
As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward.
The beads only provide one force in this scenario, and it is friction. Friction is a force that resists the motion of objects sliding past one another. I'm not sure if this is the "external force" you are referring to. If not, could you clarify?
If the same demo were done without the beads, both sides would move less. This is because the friction between the objects and the surface below the beads is higher than the friction between the layer of beads and the objects. The video states that the beads are used to provide a surface with very little friction.
This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy.
Again haven't fully caught up so sorry if this is redundant or I'm misunderstanding. But if your claim is that a skateboard doesn't move when an arrow is shot from the person on the skateboard, that could just be due to rolling friction. A bow and arrow might simply exert a lower force on both sides, too small to meet the threshold of the rolling friction.
Here's a similar example I found of a person throwing a ball on a skateboard, pushing him back. Skip to 4:00. In this example, the rolling friction was overcome by the force exerted by throwing the ball, which mechanically is similar to a bow and arrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqQCOz4hHc4&ab_channel=JonWhite
Another way to understand this intuitively is the kickback of a gun. If you have ever shot a gun, and you imagine shooting a gun while on a skateboard, you know the skateboard will likely move due to the recoil (don't try this one at home). If you want to read more about why the kickback from a bow is less than from a gun, here's a source from an archery website: https://archeryandbow.com/do-crossbows-have-recoil/
It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.
The scenario of pushing your foot against the ground on a skateboard is kind of like the scenario of throwing the ball in the video above. In both cases, you are pushing an object away from you and experiencing an equal opposite reaction force. So why does throwing the ball only move you a little bit, just barely surpassing the rolling friction threshold, while pushing off the Earth with your foot moves you a lot?
Acceleration increases speed over time. To reach a certain speed, you need to have a force exerted on you over time. The force exerted on you is very short when you throw the ball. When you throw a ball, its resistance to being thrown is negligibly small. Assuming your throwing arm moves with a constant velocity, the ball accelerates quickly to be at the same velocity as your throwing arm. By the time your arm is fully extended and about to let go of the ball, the amount of force you are exerting on it is much smaller than the moment you started to throw it. There was only a significant force applied for a short moment, and therefore only a short moment of acceleration, and therefore a small final speed.
If you stand on a skateboard and push a ball against a wall, you will meet constant resistance. The resistance is so high (assuming you are pushing off an immovable wall or the ground) that the force will only decrease when you and the skateboard start to move. Your arm will apply an equal force until you and the skateboard accelerate to a point where you start moving. Only at that point will the force and acceleration start to decrease. Because you and the skateboard are a much higher mass than the ball, the object being moved is much larger. F=MA, so more mass equals more force. This will be a longer duration of high force than the example when the ball is thrown, and therefore a longer duration of acceleration and a higher resulting speed of you on the skateboard. This is exactly the same as when your foot pushes off the ground.
-
The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential ::)
Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.
Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?
......... (suggested investigation).........
Do try this at home!
I appreciate the mathematical demonstration but you are making the very assumption I am saying is flawed, that there is a 5psi pressure differential no matter how powerful the vacuum. This is an absurd assumption with no disrespect. You really can't talk about these vacuums without taking energy or even wall stresses into account.
Lets say you have a syringe like below:
(https://i.imgur.com/PW7oDyE.png)
For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further. Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further but now the steel tube collapses so you have to replace it and reinforce with outer ribs for support. You then get an army tank that pulls the plunger further. Each foot of distance the plunger gets pulled will require an exponentially higher amount of energy to do so. It will get to a point where no vehicle or combination of vehicles will be powerful enough to pull the plunger further. You are also getting closer to material limitations where there simply won't be materials strong enough to maintain the volume of vacuum. There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.
Mark, can I just say how much I'm enjoying this conversation, learning how you think. I think I see where the vacuum logic comes from: take a cylinder of gas and a piston and apply increasing force to the piston, directed towards the gas, and the pressure will climb and as the volume of gas decreases and its pressure increases, it takes ever-increasing force to move the piston further into the cylinder in ever-decreasing amounts. This analogy is extended to pulling a piston out of a cylinder containing a vacuum, implying ever-increasing force is needed to pull the piston further out of the cylinder against the vacuum.
There's just one problem, a vacuum is nothing. Compressing a gas by reducing its volume does indeed take greater and greater effort, because there's a gas in the cylinder, but increasing the volume of a vacuum means increasing the volume of nothing. The outside pressure is still 1 atm and the internal pressure, the vacuum, is still nothing, nada, zero, so the differential is the same whether the piston is pulled out by 1cm or 500 yards. The piston is still being pulled against a pressure of 1 atm on the piston, however far it is pulled.
Have you any example of that experiment having been done to back up the idea? Gas compression is not a thought experiment like the vacuum in a piston example, it's an everyday occurrence; but I shall be astonished if you can point to even one successful attempt to prove pulling on a vacuum results in an ever-increasing resistance to being pulled. I'm not being frivolous by suggesting this would be a scientific revelation.
-
:o I am lost for words at these responses...
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.
Your use of space being 1000 to 1000000+ times stronger than a high vacuum on Earth is over-dramatising it. It's like somebody trying to get close to absolute zero, one group getting to within 0.0001K and another group getting to within 0.0000001K and then saying one is 1000 times colder than the other. In principle it is, but in reality they are hardly any different to each other compared to the scale of what 293K represents, which is a comfy room temperature. Same with such high vacuums. Yes, one might be 1000000 times "stronger", but compared to 1 atmosphere they are as near as damnit the same as each other (I know they aren't the same, but hope you understand what I'm trying to say).
Besides, in space it's not about absolute pressures, just relative pressures, and the suits are pressurised accordingly.
Rhesus, this is an outrageous comment, I can't believe you are standing over it
(https://i.imgur.com/cJllv4j.png)
This table explicitly states that an "Extremely high vacuum" is 1000 to 1000 000 000 (1 billion) times stronger than a "High Vacuum". Are you saying that the figures in this image are wrong? If so, what are the true figures?
While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.
How is that the same as pushing off the ground? The only thing providing any propulsion is the elastic. All those beads do is offer resistance to motion. If that experiment were carried out with things suspended in air from strings, would you believe the results or claim that they were pushing off the strings? Until you can accept how Newton's laws actually work, the whole rocket debate is moot - and that's kinda' what I'm driving at.
How exactly are the beads providing a propelling force? All the beads are doing is providing a low friction means by which the sled can move across. Imagine if the beads were removed and the bottom of the pan had a thin layer of ice instead. Would you say the ice is providing the force that is pushing the sled in the two opposite directions? Further still, instead of beads or ice, put little tiny wheels on the bottom of the sled, just like a skateboard. And in doing so, you now have a tabletop version of the skateboard/medicine ball demonstration. Same exact concept. Would you say the wheels now are providing the propelling force?
As you can clearly see, there is nothing equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off as there is nothing touching the ground that is doing any pushing, in opposite directions, no less. The only energy/force is in the rubber bands transferred to the sled and bar and they, in turn, act accordingly as expected and predicted by Newton's Laws.
It's exactly the same as pushing off the ground. Whether it's beads or ice or water, it makes no difference as they are external to the system. The demonstration is no different to how a snow mobile works - you have the two static skis on the front and the conveyor belt at the back creating the forward movement, the snow underneath being the external reaction force. If the slider in the middle (the component driven by the rubber bands) was not in contact with the surface underneath then you would not get any motion of the heavier slider (neglecting air resistance of course)
Here's a similar example I found of a person throwing a ball on a skateboard, pushing him back. Skip to 4:00. In this example, the rolling friction was overcome by the force exerted by throwing the ball, which mechanically is similar to a bow and arrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqQCOz4hHc4&ab_channel=JonWhite
If you stand on a skateboard and push a ball against a wall, you will meet constant resistance. The resistance is so high (assuming you are pushing off an immovable wall or the ground) that the force will only decrease when you and the skateboard start to move. Your arm will apply an equal force until you and the skateboard accelerate to a point where you start moving. Only at that point will the force and acceleration start to decrease. Because you and the skateboard are a much higher mass than the ball, the object being moved is much larger. F=MA, so more mass equals more force. This will be a longer duration of high force than the example when the ball is thrown, and therefore a longer duration of acceleration and a higher resulting speed of you on the skateboard. This is exactly the same as when your foot pushes off the ground.
I appreciate you trying to explain this, but there is no need as I already understand it - it's no different to the NASA stance. But it's completely wrong! NASA and Newton are in disagreement - I trust Newton you trust NASA.
I'm sorry but that video you posted is farcical to an extraordinary level. Here is why:
His description of why he moves backwards is wrong as it violates Newton's 1st Law:
(https://i.imgur.com/5Qy9lqe.png)
Here is the correct force analysis for why he moves backwards:
(https://i.imgur.com/2PdGdSr.png)
The green outline marks the system with green arrows showing the only force on the system (which is the air) and the velocity vector (Vsys)
The orange and blue outlines are between two internal components therefore they cannot influence the behaviour of the green system unless they have something external to work against (in this case the air) Note: I am missing an orange arrow working against the green air arrow.
This video actually made me laugh because the poor man, god bless him, was too heavy to get any real push back from the air so he had to put a sneaky pivot point underneath himself:
(https://i.imgur.com/L1becMA.png)
If you look at the video again, he's only getting enough push-back to teeter himself over this pivot point ;D
-
Mark, can I just say how much I'm enjoying this conversation, learning how you think. I think I see where the vacuum logic comes from: take a cylinder of gas and a piston and apply increasing force to the piston, directed towards the gas, and the pressure will climb and as the volume of gas decreases and its pressure increases, it takes ever-increasing force to move the piston further into the cylinder in ever-decreasing amounts. This analogy is extended to pulling a piston out of a cylinder containing a vacuum, implying ever-increasing force is needed to pull the piston further out of the cylinder against the vacuum.
There's just one problem, a vacuum is nothing. Compressing a gas by reducing its volume does indeed take greater and greater effort, because there's a gas in the cylinder, but increasing the volume of a vacuum means increasing the volume of nothing. The outside pressure is still 1 atm and the internal pressure, the vacuum, is still nothing, nada, zero, so the differential is the same whether the piston is pulled out by 1cm or 500 yards. The piston is still being pulled against a pressure of 1 atm on the piston, however far it is pulled.
Have you any example of that experiment having been done to back up the idea? Gas compression is not a thought experiment like the vacuum in a piston example, it's an everyday occurrence; but I shall be astonished if you can point to even one successful attempt to prove pulling on a vacuum results in an ever-increasing resistance to being pulled. I'm not being frivolous by suggesting this would be a scientific revelation.
Longtitube, you are learning how the real world works, as opposed the the science-fiction that NASA create on a daily basis.
You are implying that there is a perfect vacuum in space. Perfect vacuums do not exist on earth nor in space.
-
Interesting points Mark. Let me ask you this because I'm not sure I completely understand. According to your understanding of physics, the air is essential for two objects to move in opposite directions, right? For example, if a person in a hypothetical perfect vacuum threw a ball, the ball would move but not the person. Is this an accurate summary of your view?
-
:o I am lost for words at these responses...
......
(https://i.imgur.com/cJllv4j.png)
This table explicitly states that an "Extremely high vacuum" is 1000 to 1000 000 000 (1 billion) times stronger than a "High Vacuum". Are you saying that the figures in this image are wrong? If so, what are the true figures?
You're not the only one lost for words, you don't understand what that table says, but the oil is on a slow rolling boil – just tell me who taught you scientific notation for numbers and I'll collect the person and drop them in it myself. :o :o
Mark, that table lists pressures for various degrees of vacuum. Look at it again:–
(https://i.imgur.com/gcaCMNY.png)
"Pressure ranges of each quality of vacuum" is the title and you've selected the column of torr values for your case. The pressures are listed, not the "power of vacuum".
The number 1x103 is 1 multiplied by 103 which is 1x10x10x10 = 1,000. However, the number 1x10-3 (don't miss the minus sign!) means 1 divided by 103 which is 1/1000 or 0.001 and we call that a thousandth. A thousandth of a torr is a pretty small pressure.
Another number like 9.87x10-7 means 9.87 divided by 107 which is 9.87/10,000,000 or 0.000000987 and is just smaller than a millionth. A millionth of a torr is much smaller than our last example.
The table is not telling us that this, that or the other vacuum is a thousand or a billion times "more powerful" than another, but that the pressure in one is a thousandth or a billionth that of another. The table explicitly tells you that the pressure in an Extremely High Vacuum is a thousandth to a billionth that in a High Vacuum.
Someone told you the work is done by the vacuum pulling on the piston, the vacuum chamber wall or the spacesuit, but it's not. The work of keeping the piston in the syringe, fracturing the vacuum chamber or bursting the spacesuit is done by the external pressure withstood or internal pressure contained. There is space for another person in the boiling oil...
If it's the vacuum pulling, then that would even work in a vacuum chamber. I'm serious: by your reckoning, pulling water into a syringe should be possible even in a vacuum chamber, because pulling that piston will increase the "strength of vacuum" in the syringe. So does it? Watch for yourself:–
https://youtu.be/V1N6lnm6D5w
I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.
-
Interesting points Mark. Let me ask you this because I'm not sure I completely understand. According to your understanding of physics, the air is essential for two objects to move in opposite directions, right? For example, if a person in a hypothetical perfect vacuum threw a ball, the ball would move but not the person. Is this an accurate summary of your view?
It's all relative - from the person's perspective the ball would move only, from the ball's perspective the person would move only.
From a third person's perspective the velocity of the system would remain unchanged but a displacement would be created between the person and the ball. How much the person moves and how much the ball moves depends on how the force acts around the respective centres of gravity and one other vital thing that I didn't even touch on yet and that is inertia (another thorn in NASA's side ;)).
I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.
I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?
For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... ::)
-
You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?
For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... ::)
So, bring back a sample of ...... Nothing?
-
I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.
I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?
For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... ::)
I don't think you have understood what has been written or demonstrated, possibly not even read or watched either. I have tried, but it seems oddly pointless. It has, however, been highly entertaining, especially the suggestion of "bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis". ;D However, I don't want to break the strict conditions of these forums so I'm out.
Thank you for engaging. :)
-
I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.
I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?
For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... ::)
I don't think you have understood what has been written or demonstrated, possibly not even read or watched either. I have tried, but it seems oddly pointless. It has, however, been highly entertaining, especially the suggestion of "bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis". ;D However, I don't want to break the strict conditions of these forums so I'm out.
Thank you for engaging. :)
I watched the video and many of his videos in the past. The fact that he claims a "full vacuum" with his equipment is ridiculous. Boiling water does not prove a full vacuum as he implies.
Whats wrong with my suggestion about bringing back a sample of the vacuum? All they have to do is open a container in the vacuum of space, let the air out and close it again - bring it back to earth and we can now test a vacuum that we have never been able to recreate. What would be wrong with doing this?
-
Whats wrong with my suggestion about bringing back a sample of the vacuum? All they have to do is open a container in the vacuum of space, let the air out and close it again - bring it back to earth and we can now test a vacuum that we have never been able to recreate. What would be wrong with doing this?
Nothing is wrong with this! I think Longitude liked it, as do I. Even if not for science, it would be an extremely cool item to have in a museum or something.
I will respond to everything else when I have more time.
-
Ok, here we go. For anyone just tuning in, there are two conversations right now, one about rockets and newtons laws and one about spacesuits and pressure. There were a few more from before if Jack ever has a chance to continue them. This post will be about the spacesuits and pressure, and I'm going to start by reviewing the conversation a bit for those who might find it useful.
@Mark Antony, in my last big post I showed evidence that joints have always existed to allow bodily movements in spacesuits, but you still made the claim that "a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid". I will focus on this thesis of yours.
There are various other claims you have made, such as that "you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create a more stable state" which even when asked about you did not further support with evidence. There are a bunch of unsupported claims. I will leave most of these other claims for which you did not provide supporting evidence for alone, but if you feel I'm missing anything essential please let me know.
I'll start where you are correct: you said that the vacuum of "space" has never been recreated on Earth. You are correct that we have never invented a vacuum chamber that recreates the level of vacuum found in space, although we do have ultra-high vacuum chambers. I agree with you that this would be an interesting experiment to take back some "space" from a space expedition. However, mathematically we can already predict what it would be like.
I've read through the conversation a couple of times now to try to understand your views as best I can. I think the highlight of your argument for all of us was the giant syringe example. It's pretty clear that your view is based on a sincere misunderstanding of the physics of pressure. And as any good scientist should do, I hope you can take a moment to critically analyze your thesis with an open mind. I'll give you both a mathematical and experimental approach with your syringe example.
First, the math. The fact that ultra high vacuums have extremely high negative exponents of pressures means that they are extremely close to zero pressure, i.e. the differences become negligible. If the pressure inside the spacesuit is 1atm (not sure what it really is, just a thought experiment) and you are in a ultra high vacuum chamber, the pressure outside the spacesuit is 9.87×10^−16 atm. So the final pressure differential is 0.999999999 ... and so on. When you now take it into space, the pressure inside the spacesuit is the same, but the pressure outside is now approx. 2.96×10^−20, so the final pressure differential is also 0.999999999 ... and so on, but negligibly larger. The only difference is that it is ever so slightly closer to 1atm in the case of being in space.
Now, maybe this math is problematic to you because you interpret the laws of physics differently. So let's take your syringe example, which is extremely helpful, for an experimental approach. You were mentioning how pulling the 20-mile syringe would require an exponentially greater force with distance. The exponential part is central and crucial to your thesis that the vacuum of space is so powerful we cannot comprehend it. I don't think you have any experimental evidence to support that claim, so let's test it. Modern science would predict that the force required to keep pulling the syringe would rise, but asymptotically, not exponentially. This means that while the force required to pull does increase over distance as you are pulling, the derivative of the function (Δforce required to pull)/distance is positive but trends towards zero. At a certain point the force will be very high, but the delta of (force over distance) will become negligible. Eventually, you will stop noticing the change in force as you are pulling. It will be a seemingly constant large force. The change in force as you are pulling will become unnoticeable to your senses or even measurement. If your tank can already surpass that force, you can keep going forever (in an ideal system). But because this is a rule, it can be tested with a normal-sized syringe.
If you are correct here, your findings would be groundbreaking. You would be making the greatest scientific discovery in hundreds of years. So you have no excuse not run the experiment :) You can purchase a syringe for 9 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Frienda-Scientific-Dispensing-Multiple-Measuring/dp/B07MHMN3Y8/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+syringe&qid=1606773922&sr=8-4 , a spring scale for 13 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Ajax-Scientific-Plastic-Tubular-Capacity/dp/B00EPQGQIA/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+pull+scale&qid=1606773980&sr=8-2, and you will need a ruler. Plug the syringe at the bottom with something, then pull it and measure the pulling force at regular intervals. Your hypothesis is it will rise exponentially, mine (and the rest of the scientific community) is that it will rise asymptotically. If you prove me wrong, you may have shocking news regarding a basic physics principle (Boyles Law). I'll buy the tools myself and verify your result if you prove me wrong.
*** (its also possible I've made a major blunder, because again, I'm not a physics guy, but maybe one or two other people can back me up on this?)
-
Whether you’re a physicist or not, @james38, that’s very close to the points I was making, but more elegantly put. @MarkAntony, the water boiling at room temperature in that vacuum chamber is not going to begin until about 17 torr of pressure is reached - a medium vacuum, by the standards of the table from Wikipedia we both have referred to. The water boiling freely implies the pressure is reduced to and sustained at a vacuum of at least that degree. The syringe still doesn’t suck any water up when activated in that regime.
-
that’s very close to the points I was making
Ok there was some mild plagiarism ::). I should have mentioned that a lot of what i said was a reiteration of what you and others have said.
-
Ok, here we go. For anyone just tuning in, there are two conversations right now, one about rockets and newtons laws and one about spacesuits and pressure. There were a few more from before if Jack ever has a chance to continue them. This post will be about the spacesuits and pressure, and I'm going to start by reviewing the conversation a bit for those who might find it useful.
@Mark Antony, in my last big post I showed evidence that joints have always existed to allow bodily movements in spacesuits, but you still made the claim that "a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid". I will focus on this thesis of yours.
There are various other claims you have made, such as that "you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create a more stable state" which even when asked about you did not further support with evidence. There are a bunch of unsupported claims. I will leave most of these other claims for which you did not provide supporting evidence for alone, but if you feel I'm missing anything essential please let me know.
I'll start where you are correct: you said that the vacuum of "space" has never been recreated on Earth. You are correct that we have never invented a vacuum chamber that recreates the level of vacuum found in space, although we do have ultra-high vacuum chambers. I agree with you that this would be an interesting experiment to take back some "space" from a space expedition. However, mathematically we can already predict what it would be like.
I've read through the conversation a couple of times now to try to understand your views as best I can. I think the highlight of your argument for all of us was the giant syringe example. It's pretty clear that your view is based on a sincere misunderstanding of the physics of pressure. And as any good scientist should do, I hope you can take a moment to critically analyze your thesis with an open mind. I'll give you both a mathematical and experimental approach with your syringe example.
First, the math. The fact that ultra high vacuums have extremely high negative exponents of pressures means that they are extremely close to zero pressure, i.e. the differences become negligible. If the pressure inside the spacesuit is 1atm (not sure what it really is, just a thought experiment) and you are in a ultra high vacuum chamber, the pressure outside the spacesuit is 9.87×10^−16 atm. So the final pressure differential is 0.999999999 ... and so on. When you now take it into space, the pressure inside the spacesuit is the same, but the pressure outside is now approx. 2.96×10^−20, so the final pressure differential is also 0.999999999 ... and so on, but negligibly larger. The only difference is that it is ever so slightly closer to 1atm in the case of being in space.
Now, maybe this math is problematic to you because you interpret the laws of physics differently. So let's take your syringe example, which is extremely helpful, for an experimental approach. You were mentioning how pulling the 20-mile syringe would require an exponentially greater force with distance. The exponential part is central and crucial to your thesis that the vacuum of space is so powerful we cannot comprehend it. I don't think you have any experimental evidence to support that claim, so let's test it. Modern science would predict that the force required to keep pulling the syringe would rise, but asymptotically, not exponentially. This means that while the force required to pull does increase over distance as you are pulling, the derivative of the function (Δforce required to pull)/distance is positive but trends towards zero. At a certain point the force will be very high, but the delta of (force over distance) will become negligible. Eventually, you will stop noticing the change in force as you are pulling. It will be a seemingly constant large force. The change in force as you are pulling will become unnoticeable to your senses or even measurement. If your tank can already surpass that force, you can keep going forever (in an ideal system). But because this is a rule, it can be tested with a normal-sized syringe.
If you are correct here, your findings would be groundbreaking. You would be making the greatest scientific discovery in hundreds of years. So you have no excuse not run the experiment :) You can purchase a syringe for 9 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Frienda-Scientific-Dispensing-Multiple-Measuring/dp/B07MHMN3Y8/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+syringe&qid=1606773922&sr=8-4 , a spring scale for 13 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Ajax-Scientific-Plastic-Tubular-Capacity/dp/B00EPQGQIA/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+pull+scale&qid=1606773980&sr=8-2, and you will need a ruler. Plug the syringe at the bottom with something, then pull it and measure the pulling force at regular intervals. Your hypothesis is it will rise exponentially, mine (and the rest of the scientific community) is that it will rise asymptotically. If you prove me wrong, you may have shocking news regarding a basic physics principle (Boyles Law). I'll buy the tools myself and verify your result if you prove me wrong.
*** (its also possible I've made a major blunder, because again, I'm not a physics guy, but maybe one or two other people can back me up on this?)
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.
Scientific vacuum chambers on earth require extremely complex processes to create. They need mechanical displacement pumps, ion pumps and often the chamber needs to be baked to 600+ degrees to remove any contaminants or moisture in the chamber.
And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself! This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.
And yet all of these problems have been miraculously solved in the ISS, lunar modules, space suits but not on earth? In 2018 there was a 2 mm hole in the ISS that they covered with duct tape ??? . In an incredibly embarrassing gaffe, Chris Hadfield posts an SEM image of the hole which turned out to be the album cover for the band Remedy Drive!
(https://i.imgur.com/4qHQkuG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FS5GRR1.png)
It was at this point I knew NASA were taking the piss out of everyone. It's not a conspiracy, it's a joke on a global level.
-
It was a file image to illustrate the type of damage caused by micrometeorites. It was taken in 1984 and published by NASA in 2006. Remedy Drive subsequently used the image for their album artwork. I don't know if they had the copyright holders permission.
And the force applied by the ISS atmosphere to the approx 2mm hole and its subsequent "duct tape & a gob of epoxy" is about 50 grammes. You do the math.
NASA is apparently pouring millions of dollars into fooling you; please try and give them some credit.
-
In an incredibly embarrassing gaffe, Chris Hadfield posts an SEM image of the hole which turned out to be the album cover for the band Remedy Drive!
(https://i.imgur.com/4qHQkuG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FS5GRR1.png)
It was at this point I knew NASA were taking the piss out of everyone. It's not a conspiracy, it's a joke on a global level.
You might want to dig a little deeper and orient yourself toward facts, not just something that seems dazzling to your belief system.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/remedy-drive.jpg)
Timeline:
1984: The photo was taken.
2006: The photo was first published by NASA.
2006: The photo was uploaded to Wikipedia.
2014: Remedy Drive released “Commodity” using the photo as the album’s artwork.
2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album “Commodity”.
Chris Hadfield’s Tweets:
(https://i.imgur.com/7ksoQZW.png)
-
It was a file image to illustrate the type of damage caused by micrometeorites. It was taken in 1984 and published by NASA in 2006. Remedy Drive subsequently used the image for their album artwork. I don't know if they had the copyright holders permission.
NASA content are generally not copyrighted (https://gpm.nasa.gov/image-use-policy). So as long as they didn't make it look like NASA endorsed their album, they're fine.
-
Timeline:
1984: The photo was taken.
2006: The photo was first published by NASA.
2006: The photo was uploaded to Wikipedia.
2014: Remedy Drive released “Commodity” using the photo as the album’s artwork.
2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album “Commodity”.
Chris Hadfield’s Tweets:
(https://i.imgur.com/7ksoQZW.png)
The problem appears to be that Chris Hadfield implied in his post that it was a recent photo from the space station incident. The previous album art from years prior still shows Hadfield to be a liar, even if the album appropriated it from a prior NASA source.
Hadfield days later posting that it's an example doesn't absolve him of being deceptive.
-
Illustrating a story about the damage caused by orbital debris with a picture showing the damage caused by orbital debris? That's much worse than lying, that's treason. He should be shot on the spot, no trial.
-
Timeline:
1984: The photo was taken.
2006: The photo was first published by NASA.
2006: The photo was uploaded to Wikipedia.
2014: Remedy Drive released “Commodity” using the photo as the album’s artwork.
2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album “Commodity”.
Chris Hadfield’s Tweets:
(https://i.imgur.com/7ksoQZW.png)
The problem appears to be that Chris Hadfield implied in his post that it was a recent photo from the space station incident. The previous album art from years prior still shows Hadfield to be a liar, even if the album appropriated it from a prior NASA source.
Hadfield days later posting that it's an example doesn't absolve him of being deceptive.
Your interpretation is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the image example was not taken from some band's album cover as some FE claim. The fact is that the band took the image that was published by NASA in 2006 and 8 years later used it for their album art. Facts are facts and the FE claim is incorrect.
-
I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.
The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.
-
I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.
The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.
Do you speak for all FE proponents? I said some FEr's claim...
Your interpretation is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the image example was not taken from some band's album cover as some FE claim. The fact is that the band took the image that was published by NASA in 2006 and 8 years later used it for their album art. Facts are facts and the FE claim is incorrect.
"Remedy Drive issued an unlikely statement this week in response to flat earthers connecting their album cover to a blog by astronaut Chris Hadfield...Soon both Hadfield and Remedy Drive were receiving social media feedback from flat earthers who believed the old image’s pairing with the next blog post to be a part of ongoing NASA cover-ups. Remedy Drive singer David Zach posted a statement to the band’s pages, saying “I am disappointed for you that our album cover photo is not the smoking gun against NASA that you all hoped for. We used a Creative Commons photo for our Commodity album signifying the first lyric on the first song ‘I don’t need a bandaid for my bullet hole.’ We’re a rock and roll band that using our songs and our time to combat human trafficking.”
Zach went on to graciously offer the flat earthers free copies of the Commodity album, also offering an email address where he welcome ongoing conversation. “I still think the earth is really really old and I think our planet is spherical. I’d love for you to change my mind though. I’m david@remedydrive.com. I have a lot of respect for you all and wish you the best.”
https://rockonpurpose.live/2018/09/06/remedy-drive-album-cover-becomes-topic-of-flat-earthers-debate/
(https://i.imgur.com/xrP7o26.png)
Stick to the facts.
-
I don't see anything to support your suggestion that it's an "FE claim". It was something that Twitter users pointed out when Hadfield made that post.
The previously existing album cover claim was made in response to Chris Hadfield's twitter post, and suggested that he was being deceitful about his implication that it was the picture of the ISS event. The album cover indeed shows that Chris Hadfield did not post a picture of the ISS event. Your argument that "well, it came from NASA anywayyy..." is irrelevant.
Do you speak for all FE proponents? I said some FEr's claim...
Well, it has to be something that all or a majority of FE'ers claim. If I picked out some incorrect or wrong RE claim that you made on a forum, and then went around parading that it was the "RE Claim," that would be an unfair and duplicitous assessment.
You have not quoted the person who originated this claim and under what context. It was clearly in response to Hadfield's twitter post, and which does correctly show Hadfield's implication to be incorrect.
-
It is a common RE claim that acceleration and velocity are one and the same - they use the terms interchangeably, and struggle to remain consistent with their units. Since they are not the same, we know that RE must be false.
^^^ stack, the above illustrates the problem with your logic. Argue honestly, it'll make you feel better in the long run.
-
It is a common RE claim that acceleration and velocity are one and the same - they use the terms interchangeably, and struggle to remain consistent with their units. Since they are not the same, we know that RE must be false.
^^^ stack, the above illustrates the problem with your logic. Argue honestly, it'll make you feel better in the long run.
Just showing the facts and responding to what the original poster wrote. The guy from the band responded to some FEr's (He mentions FEr's specifically) that were claiming that the image that the astronaut posted was taken from his band's album cover as the 'source'. If the guy from the band responded to some "NASA deniers", stating that specifically instead and never mentioning FEr's, then I would never have mentioned FE. But he was specific. And I said "some" not all. I find nothing dishonest about that at all. If you don't agree with the facts as laid out, fine.
-
And I said "some" not all.
You didn't. You said "2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'" - your use of "flat-earthers" is analogous to my use of "RE'ers" - no ifs, no buts, no somes. You only started trying to inject the word "some" into the conversation once it was pointed out to you that you're blatantly propagandising.
Why are you desperately trying to retcon your own statements? If you're as honest as you claim, wouldn't it be common sense to simply acknowledge your error and correct your claim? Is there any particular reason why you erroneously cling to calling some guy on the Internet "flat-earthers" rather than "some guy on the Internet"?
-
And I said "some" not all.
You didn't. You said "2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'" - your use of "flat-earthers" is analogous to my use of "RE'ers" - no ifs, no buts, no somes. You only started trying to inject the word "some" into the conversation once it was pointed out to you that you're blatantly propagandising.
Why are you desperately trying to retcon your own statements? If you're as honest as you claim, wouldn't it be common sense to simply acknowledge your error and correct your claim? Is there any particular reason why you erroneously cling to calling some guy on the Internet "flat-earthers" rather than "some guy on the Internet"?
Ok, agreed, my statement was an outlandish and horrible misrepresentation of the flat earth community. I am truly devastated that I may have caused any undue harm to any within and beyond this society who self identify as a 'flat earther' or 'FEr'. In an attempt to make amends, I will revise my earlier statement that was so egregiously inept and hurtful to read:
"2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by some flat-Earthers as stolen from the album 'Commodity'"
And if that is not enough, even though the singer from the band specifically addresses "flat earthers", I will refrain from doing so:
"2018: Chris Hadfield tweeted the original photo, but misinterpreted by some as stolen from the album 'Commodity'"
There, as requested, I have acknowledged my error and corrected my claim.
-
@james38
Models are meta-scientific tools. They are not for explanation or understanding.
I disagree. The model of a spherical Earth, along with all the other planets, and all liquids forming into spheres when floating, is a great model for understanding and explaining, and has been for about 2000 years.
-
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.
You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.
Scientific vacuum chambers on earth require extremely complex processes to create. They need mechanical displacement pumps, ion pumps and often the chamber needs to be baked to 600+ degrees to remove any contaminants or moisture in the chamber.
And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself! This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.
Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?
-
I'm obsessed with keeping these conversations a little organized so first here's the short list again of the side conversations that we never really finished:
- My questions to Jack
- rockets and newtons laws
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of.
Honestly, this comment took me by surprise. Your giant syringe example was your attempt to take a basic physics principle and apply it to your understanding of the physics of space, not mine. And it was your misunderstanding of that basics physics principle that, as you explained yourself, made the concept of space absurd to you.
I gave your giant syringe example some serious thought. I approached it with an open mind. To be honest, I thought it was an incredible point. I'm not a physics guy, and I actually thought you were right at first. I never really thought about it... if you pull on a syringe the pulling force does rise exponentially, doesn't it? So I took your point seriously and looked into it a bit more and discovered Boyles law, etc. After I discovered why we were both actually wrong (because I believed you at first), then I tried to walk you through exactly where your understanding of pressure was wrong in my mind.
The fact that you merely pushed the whole thing aside without even acknowledging that you misunderstood the way pressure works made me feel discouraged from continuing the conversation. I will try to continue for now, but only as long as we can agree that open-minded debate is a two-way street. We both have to be willing to admit when we are wrong.
And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself!
Can I ask you your source on this one? I just want to read more so I understand where you are coming from.
This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.
So when you say "this is a problem", I think you mean the problem of how to understand the physics of space from the surface of the Earth? I agree it's a fascinating question. Maybe you are correct that the effects of quantum physics become non-negligible at this level of a vacuum. This is probably way beyond what I can do with my freshman college level of physics understanding, but I'd definitely be down to try for fun.
But let's stay focused here: this conversation is centered around your thesis that spacesuits could not possibly work in space due to the high pressure. That's why my response to your syringe problem was so important because whether you admit it or not, your thesis seems to be now unfounded.
I hope I'm not coming off as overly aggressive. I'm just stating the fact here that your thesis as stated above, as it currently stands in this conversation, is based on no evidence or argument. If you still stand by the syringe example, why? If you think quantum physics would cause the spacesuits to not work in a vacuum, why? Just because quantum physics might become non-negligible is not on its own supporting your thesis that the spacesuits would not work in space.
And yet all of these problems have been miraculously solved in the ISS, lunar modules, space suits but not on earth?
Again, what problems? I'm sincerely trying to understand. Because your first problem (the giant syringe) wasn't really a problem. Now you seem to bring up quantum physics but you haven't connected it back to your whole thesis; you haven't stated why quantum physics would prevent the spacesuits from working, and what your basis for your understanding of quantum physics is.
I find it quite funny actually that this is coming back to burden of proof. If the burden of proof is on the claimant, and your claim is that "spacesuits could not work in space", then it is your burden to prove this. This isn't because I'm trying to force you to do more work or anything, it's because that's the way critical thinking works.
If you have a claim, either support it with evidence and arguments or drop it. That goes for both sides. Fair, right?
So I second Longtitube's question for you: Where's the beef, Mark?
In 2018 there was a 2 mm hole in the ISS that they covered with duct tape ??? . In an incredibly embarrassing gaffe, Chris Hadfield posts an SEM image of the hole which turned out to be the album cover for the band Remedy Drive!
Thankfully a bunch of other people responded about this so I can take a break :D
Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that
I did not know that. What do you mean exactly? Very interesting.
no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body.
This is the debate about a "theory of everything" right? Or is it a more specific hole in our understanding of forces?
-
Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that
I did not know that. What do you mean exactly? Very interesting.
no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body.
This is the debate about a "theory of everything" right? Or is it a more specific hole in our understanding of forces?
Some subjects are almost completely “done” in science, like chemistry: when an unknown form of carbon (buckminsterfullerine) was discovered some years ago, its bond energies, molecular size and other properties were rapidly calculated from theory by chemists who had not actually seen the stuff - and found to be accurate. Magnetism (and gravity), although understood quite well, lacks the “theory of everything” to fully explain it. There is no theory, however, for the basis of mechanics: things are as we observe, not as predicted by Klausowitzensky’s Principia Mecanica Universalis.
But if you want an example of something we really don’t fully understand, try to come up with a theoretical explanation of adhesion which allows predictions of which substance makes the best glue. Last I heard, that one was nowhere to be found, but the glues still work. Just as well for the ISS astronauts, eh, Mark?
-
What happens after the rocket goes out of sight?
Out of sight of ... whom? Those at the launch site?
Well, in the case of many launches, they are seen by folk in other countries, shortly after launch. In the case of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut, it completed almost two orbits, having been launched Eastward from the Florida coast, and was seen from the California coast (West of the launch site) executing the exit burn to take it out of Earth orbit.
For this we are completely reliant on what NASA shows us.
No, we're not. You and I can simply look up, with telescope or binoculars, to see man-made objects, exactly where they are predicted to be.
I believe the rocket crashes in the ocean and what we are shown by NASA is nothing more than an artists impression of what space is.
Once again, it's not all about NASA. What about SpaceX? JAXA? Roscosmos? ESA?
Also, what about the launches from Baikonour, which is not. on. the. coast. ???
-
My, oh my where do I even begin.
Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle. None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.
How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air?
... because we can see clearly, from every rocket launch and engine test, that the air is not providing resistance to the rocket exhaust. The exhaust drives air away from the craft, resulting in exhaust product and steam (due to water being boiled in the flame trench) being driven at high speed away from the craft. The movement of large volumes of air, again away from the craft, results in huge sound waves, and lots of noise, for nearby observers.
If the air provided resistance, it would not be driven away from the craft.
Since the air is being driven away from the craft, it cannot be providing resistance.
-
I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.
OK, let's start.
Do you accept the principle that explosives and fuels, when detonated or ignited, generate rapid and significant expansion of gas product, from the chemical reaction initiated by detonation or ignition?
-
Lets say you have a syringe like below:
img as above
For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further.
No. The vacuum has no 'strength', no force, no motive power. The person is working to overcome the atmospheric pressure which is working on the plunger to push it back in. The vacuum is not dragging the plunger back in, the atmosphere is pushing it.
Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further .... There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.
The limitation is the material strength, given each application is exposing more and more of the barrel to the atmospheric pressure. It's an issue of material strength over a progressively larger area, not of variance in pressure differential.
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum".
Again, the vacuum has no "strength". It cannot act upon anything without matter to act. The varying "strengths" you cite are merely progressions away from vacuum.
EDIT
(https://i.imgur.com/gcaCMNY.png)
The last column reads, in plain English
1 atmosphere
0.987 to 0.03
0.03 to 0.000000987
0.000000987 to 0.000000000000987
etc progressively smaller, to
0
The other columns merely express the same with different units of meaurement
1 atmosphere = approx 15psi at sea level. Each value in this column, and in the others, is some value less than 15psi, down to zero. The relationship between them is immaterial. They're all less than 15psi.
-
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!
What do you mean this has been settled? Defend them all you want, the truth is that a prominent NASA figure posted a picture giving the impression it was the very hole in the ISS when in reality it was nothing of the sort and what's worse is that it was years old and one that had even been used by a band on their album cover. All the subsequent twitter posts were clear backtracking. If he was comfortable with what he did then there would have been no need for backtracking. Embarrassing gaffe for an organisation that chews through billions of dollars annually.
Also, who cares what the band says? Their statements are immaterial.
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.
You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.
Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?
Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law. ::)
Unfortunately for you it is well known in the scientific world that vacuums are difficult to achieve, unpredictable and generally a pain to work with. Industrial vacuum chambers, spectrophotometers, particle accelerators, x-ray machines all need careful and sophisticated designs. But guess what? They all only have 1atm exerted on them.
Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:
(https://i.imgur.com/QL9ytso.png)
Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)
Scientific journals are plagued with engineering problems of this nature.
And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.
Incredible isn't it?
Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.
-
Again, vacuum has no "strength". The table you use to illustrate the "strength" of vacuum is merely cataloguing the density/strength of the atmosphere present. Any presence of air or gas particles leading to a less-than-perfect vacuum merely leaves you with the category closest to atmospheric pressure having more "strength" than those categories below.
This is not "strength of the vacuum", it is merely the presence of more and more atmosphere influencing anything with less.
-
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!
What do you mean this has been settled?
The photo originates from NASA and was originally published to Wikipedia on 15 November 2006. These are facts.
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.
You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.
Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?
Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law. ::)
Others have answered about rockets and Newton's three laws already. I have quoted and supplied links to substantiate things and yes, it's expected you can also back up your scientific claims with scientific facts, so thank you for the link, but the smaller figures in the diagrams you show are illegible, so here's a link to the source of those diagrams:–
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/p03/PAPERS/MPPB003.PDF (https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/p03/PAPERS/MPPB003.PDF)
Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:
(https://i.imgur.com/QL9ytso.png)
Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)
If you read the article more carefully, you'll see the deflection wasn't as you claim:–
All previous ID VC had an elliptical aperture. The deflection under atmospheric pressure for such a shape, even with 1 mm wall thickness, is below 100 μm per wall. (my emphasis)
How is a chamber wall deflection of around one tenth of a millimetre "unprecedented"?
And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.
Incredible isn't it?
I suggest a small experiment: buy yourself a Coke can and let it warm to room temperature; or if you're more adventurous, let it warm in the sun or above a radiator. Measure distance between the top rim of the can and the surface of the top face of the can. Then open the can and measure the distance between top rim and top surface again. Let us know how negligible is the difference, if any, between the two measurements.
Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
I read the article through and it is a good summation of the problems of getting the gas pressure down to high vacuum. I've seen some of the diagrams used elsewhere, I know about the application of kinetic gas theory to the problems, but I'm still no wiser as to quantum effects, oddball chemistry or the "immense power" of such regimes? As for diffusion through the chamber wall, the article instances helium as being able to penetrate to a degree, but helium is not a substantial part of our atmosphere, nor is it used in spacecraft breathing atmospheres that I'm aware of, so why should that be relevant to the "strength" or "power" of a vacuum?
What I did notice in the article is confirmation of my point about some things in science being based on experiment and observation, rather than derived from theory:–
The above is related to the principle in classical mechanics where kinetic energy = 1/2 m v2, developed by Leibniz and Bernoulli and originally described in 1722 by Gravesande in a series of experiments in which brass balls were dropped from varying heights onto a soft clay surface. Gravesande found that a ball with twice the speed of another would leave an indentation four times as deep, from which he concluded that the force generated by a body in motion is proportional to the square of its velocity. This same principle applies to the kinetic gas theory where the force of the molecules impacting the walls of the vessel is what generates the gas pressure, in proportion to the square of their speed.
So kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared is not derived from grand theory, but experiment. That finding is subsequently included in the theory and taught to school students and others as part of mechanics, but you will search in vain for a theoretical origin for it.
I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.
I enjoy learning new things, so I ask you to reconsider that remark.
-
I got to say I'm a bit disappointed. What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum.
More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.
Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?
-
I got to say I'm a bit disappointed. What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum.
More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.
Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?
You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
-
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion
-
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion
From the FES Wiki:
Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane
This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.
If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty? There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously. Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth? Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up. Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?
That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!
Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well.
-
@DuncanDoenitz, well said. I'm happy to discuss Newtonian physics, but I'm also curious if other FE proponents support or reject some of Mark's claims. Mark said he didn't really read the FE wiki so I think he has a unique approach.
That being said, the FE movement is pretty decentralized, isn't it? I'm pretty new here but I get the impression that most here are free thinkers and that there's not much dogma in FE theory
@Mark, still very interested to hear your response to my #151 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg227061#msg227061) whenever you have time
Also about the direction of this thread, a bunch of really interesting talking points was being carried on the FE side by jack44556677 who hasn't been around in a while. I outlined them back in #93 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg225730#msg225730), where they still lie completely unanswered
-
You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I can't explain rocket theory to you with any more eloquence than the other correspondents.
And at least half of a debate consists of listening. And understanding.
-
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
Not really clear what you mean by space being a vacuum violating Newton's 1st law. His 1st law is simply that objects stay at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force.
Rockets generate thrust by two mechanisms, in a similar manner to jet engines, namely momentum and pressure. Momentum is simply the mass and velocity of the exhaust flow. If you stand on a skate board and throw a bowling ball backwards, you will go forwards. This doesn't depend in any way on the ambient pressure, or lack of it.
The pressure term in the rocket thrust equation is the static pressure of the exhaust flow, minus the ambient static pressure, multiplied by the exhaust nozzle area. Notice that in this case the thrust increases as the ambient static pressure reduces - you get more thrust, all other things being the same, in a vacuum.
-
If you stand on a skate board and throw a bowling ball backwards, you will go forwards. This doesn't depend in any way on the ambient pressure, or lack of it.
We've been here. See #123 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg226246#msg226246) for Mark's latest comments on the skateboard example. I still haven't had a chance to fully respond to this, but maybe you want to take a shot at it?
-
We've been here. See #123 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg226246#msg226246) for Mark's latest comments on the skateboard example. I still haven't had a chance to fully respond to this, but maybe you want to take a shot at it?
Thanks. Yes, I saw that.
On the skate board example, Mark doesn't seem to understand momentum. If you throw an object backwards like the man in that video, assuming zero or at least near zero friction, your mass times your velocity will be equal and opposite to the mass times the velocity of the ball. This is easily testable and demonstrable - kids the world over learn this stuff in physics lessons, indeed I vividly recall playing about with ticker tape timers and various model rail carts with different masses in my teenage physics lessons. If air pressure was involved in some way we would see very different results at different ambient air pressures, or indeed if we used different gases surrounding the experiments, but we don't see that at all.
Moreover, Mark is completely ignoring the other term in the equation, namely the pressure component. This actually increases the rocket thrust as pressure reduces. Again, this is easily testable stuff, although the equipment needed for this isn't going to be found in your average school lab.
Mark also seems to have completely misunderstood the issue of how 'strong' or how 'powerful' a vacuum is. From a structural perspective, all that matters is the forces involved. If we are talking about the ability of a container to not crush due to an internal vacuum, then those forces are given by the external pressure and the internal pressure. For a vacuum, or a near-vacuum, that internal pressure is essentially zero - there is negligible difference between the various classes of vacuum listed in the table, as they are all very close to zero. There is nothing inherently special about a vacuum from a structural perspective - we could just as easily recreate the same forces on a container by having, say, atmospheric pressure inside the container and a larger pressure outside it. As other posters have said, vacuums don't suck, it is atmospheric pressure that is doing the crushing. The same is of course true for pressurised vessels, like the ISS, in outer space. The pressure differential is not that remarkable - around 14psi, which isn't that much more than an airliner at cruise altitude (eg 787 typically around 9psi differential).
It is of course true that it is very difficult to create a perfect vacuum. It can't really be done by any machine, although you might of course achieve some localised vacuum space where there are no particles. But this difficulty doesn't mean vacuums are magic - it's just very hard to completely prevent small numbers of gas molecules leaking in to a low pressure environment. Indeed, space itself isn't a perfect vacuum, there are small numbers of (mainly) hydrogen molecules kicking around out there. I daresay spacecraft like the ISS leak a fair bit out into space, but the amount of leakage will be trivial in comparison to the capacity of the onboard systems.
-
@all
Thank you for your responses! I owe you all responses in kind - that will be forthcoming - but I thought this response to the OP ought come first.
@james38
I just need some way to categorize people! :)
You really don't, and you reduce/dehumanize them attempting to do so. If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.
I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.
We should all humbly admit our own bias
It is harder than simply "admitting", sadly. First you must make the implicit explicit, then evaluate it objectively (ALSO no small feat), THEN you have the chance to possibly "humbly admit" your recognized (the tricky bit) bias.
We should earnestly and diligently try to find our own biases and help each other to point out the ones we inevitably miss! There is no shame in recogizing our subjective nature and great harm in denying it. We ought to be able to point out/criticize one anothers biases and offer thanks for the service.
Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims.
And just like that, a long meandering tangential thread returns to its central topic! The burden of proof falls on the claimant. We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions - however citing published journal articles (nor any other particular source) is not required to do that.
I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation. If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it. In any case, strong independent research skills are vital and required in this subject (in truth, they are vital for all subjects and shamefully neglected by most)
There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth.
Endless, yes. But that's only in THINKING about the shape of the earth. Actually determining it only has the one way - rigorous and repeated measurement (of the world, not the sky or any other damned thing that is NOT the world)!
It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring.
Not when it is! When the line of thinking/inquiry IS in fact red herring - letting others know is extremely productive - if only in saving time from being wasted.
it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked.
I suspect it is somewhere around 30. In england and other "friendly" european nations, the percentage is higher - around or above 50.
The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence.
The longer you live the better you will likely learn/internalize that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. In any case, the thomas baron "incident" is not a sole example demonstrating "fishy" things surrounding apollo.
There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful.
Your bias rears its ugly head. There are methods to ESTIMATE - not answer nor determine.
In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence". You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.
The Conspiracy: Mars Rat
But you do not know it is a rat.
Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.
It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example. There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.
Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo. "Double blind", that is a rat. I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.
ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith. No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible. It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".
When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.
Societal Opression
If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.
One of the first things we learn as young children is the lie that our primitive ancestors thought the world was flat and were afraid to fall off the edge if they sailed too far. We are conditioned to mock and deride anyone who questions our modern "advanced wisdom" of the shape of the earth (or most anything else) from a shamefully tender age. This is not coincidence, and is the reason there is the opposite of "welcoming" and consideration/evaluation for this subject.
Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!
I hope that you are right and there are those with the bravery and conviction to risk all for the benefit of mankind - however my experience with reality (including academia) has been distinctly less grandiose. People generally do what the money tells them to because they are too poor to object.
If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.
There are many such observations (NOT experiments, as we have discussed) that can and have been made in the past. I will leave the puzzle of why they are not replicated to you. Personally, I think discovery happens wherever you look thoroughly, and it is through philosophy/creation myth that we influence where/how to look and the bounds on what can be hoped to be found. The reason the research groups don't take a chance on measuring the shape of the world rigorously (which would almost certainly garner them some attention!), is because their creation myth/philosophy/world view informs them there is no need to.
But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence.
The evidence is in every primary school in the world. As I explained, it is one of the first things all students learn.
since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech.
Does it though? (he asks, knowingly)
Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you?
I can direct you to many threads containing demonstration/examples of common/typical responses to flat earth research. Dissent is not tolerated, and many people froth at the mouth as a result of their conditioning to that effect through rote under the guise of education.
-
Jack, how do you propose yo directly measure the shape of the Earth? Many indirect measurements have been made, but you seem to reject them as they do not directly measure the Earth.
-
If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.
I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.
The burden of proof falls on the claimant. We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions ...
Surely some setting up a website called The Flat Earth Society has already put themselves in the box?
And surely setting up such a site makes the FEP the claimant?
I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation. If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it. ...
... back to previous threads, and, despite my repeated asking of you, you have NEVER provided a source, nor elaborated on the detail of any "research" you have done. You always ddoge away from this.
-
And surely setting up such a site makes the FEP the claimant?
For the avoidance of doubt: no, that's not how conversation threads work, and you know that very well. Since this was an obvious attempt at hijacking yet another thread, I'm giving you one final warning. Play nicely or don't play at all.
-
I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation. If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it. ...
Presumably you meant something else. Elucidation is always welcome, elaboration can be useful, but obfuscation is no help to anyone.
-
Do you accept the principle that explosives and fuels, when detonated or ignited, generate rapid and significant expansion of gas product, from the chemical reaction initiated by detonation or ignition?
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion
I didn't miss it, I'm just not interested in having a discussion about how explosives work on earth and then making assumptions that they work the same way in a near perfect vacuum scenario. This is no different to the bowling ball/gun recoil argument - it skews the readers interpretation of what may happen when the reality is quite the contrary.
From the FES Wiki:
Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane
This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.
If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty? There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously. Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth? Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up. Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?
That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!
Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well.
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not a member of any flat earth organisation and I'm certainly not going to let myself be categorized into whatever you think a "flat earther" is.
@Mark, still very interested to hear your response to my #151 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg227061#msg227061) whenever you have time
I'm obsessed with keeping these conversations a little organized so first here's the short list again of the side conversations that we never really finished:
- My questions to Jack
- rockets and newtons laws
You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of.
Honestly, this comment took me by surprise. Your giant syringe example was your attempt to take a basic physics principle and apply it to your understanding of the physics of space, not mine. And it was your misunderstanding of that basics physics principle that, as you explained yourself, made the concept of space absurd to you.
I gave your giant syringe example some serious thought. I approached it with an open mind. To be honest, I thought it was an incredible point. I'm not a physics guy, and I actually thought you were right at first. I never really thought about it... if you pull on a syringe the pulling force does rise exponentially, doesn't it? So I took your point seriously and looked into it a bit more and discovered Boyles law, etc. After I discovered why we were both actually wrong (because I believed you at first), then I tried to walk you through exactly where your understanding of pressure was wrong in my mind.
The fact that you merely pushed the whole thing aside without even acknowledging that you misunderstood the way pressure works made me feel discouraged from continuing the conversation. I will try to continue for now, but only as long as we can agree that open-minded debate is a two-way street. We both have to be willing to admit when we are wrong.
And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself!
Can I ask you your source on this one? I just want to read more so I understand where you are coming from.
This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.
So when you say "this is a problem", I think you mean the problem of how to understand the physics of space from the surface of the Earth? I agree it's a fascinating question. Maybe you are correct that the effects of quantum physics become non-negligible at this level of a vacuum. This is probably way beyond what I can do with my freshman college level of physics understanding, but I'd definitely be down to try for fun.
But let's stay focused here: this conversation is centered around your thesis that spacesuits could not possibly work in space due to the high pressure. That's why my response to your syringe problem was so important because whether you admit it or not, your thesis seems to be now unfounded.
I hope I'm not coming off as overly aggressive. I'm just stating the fact here that your thesis as stated above, as it currently stands in this conversation, is based on no evidence or argument. If you still stand by the syringe example, why? If you think quantum physics would cause the spacesuits to not work in a vacuum, why? Just because quantum physics might become non-negligible is not on its own supporting your thesis that the spacesuits would not work in space.
There are just too many questions here, the answers to which need a lot of time and prerequisite knowledge (even more than what I have myself). I'm not saying it goes beyond our level of understanding, but it's hard to go into detail on this when there is such variation in people's background knowledge of the topic. Besides, I think I touched on a lot of your questions in post #157
If you read the article in this link:
https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
The first paragraph he describes how some industrial vacuums are equivalent to increasing the volume of a cubic meter of gas to 200 times the volume of the grand canyon. Industrial vacuums require a lot of engineering to ensure they don't collapse in on themselves. But why? Why not use a perspex box like some of the videos shown earlier in the thread if the difference in pressure is as minimal as is suggested?
-
In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence". You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.
The Conspiracy: Mars Rat
But you do not know it is a rat.
Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.
It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example. There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.
Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo. "Double blind", that is a rat. I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.
ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith. No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible. It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".
When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.
I find it interesting how you regularly bring up the rat as I feel there is some kind of inside joke around it at NASA and spaceX. A rat has appeared on a number of occasions in the space footage. Here is one example to examine from a few months back while I try and find another one from a few years ago:
See from 3:16:20 onwards on the left panel there appears to be a rat on the thruster in outer space!
https://youtu.be/ONsyAe6d-eg?t=11760
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?
-
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?
Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:
(https://i.imgur.com/tSFTPip.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/xCpnak5.gif)
-
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?
Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:
Have you a source for this footage?
-
Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?
Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:
Have you a source for this footage?
Same place your "rat" footage came from.
-
Same place your "rat" footage came from.
At which time point in the video? I can't find it.