(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 It is not peer-reviewed and does not seem to be published in a journal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.
SpacesuitsArgument 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 NatureSomething 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.