21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 10:25:44 AM »
@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:
Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:
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.
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:
Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:
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.