1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 15, 2020, 03:14:30 PM »

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 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?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 14, 2020, 04:13:56 AM »

@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 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, where they still lie completely unanswered

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 11, 2020, 12:44:38 AM »

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 

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?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 01, 2020, 02:38:39 PM »

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.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 30, 2020, 10:28:29 PM »

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?)

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 30, 2020, 12:03:09 AM »

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.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 28, 2020, 06:33:19 PM »

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?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 26, 2020, 06:57:43 PM »

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.



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.   

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 24, 2020, 08:25:40 PM »

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.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 24, 2020, 08:16:59 PM »

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.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 23, 2020, 08:05:58 AM »

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.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 21, 2020, 12:56:36 PM »

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?

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:

[]

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.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 20, 2020, 05:36:58 PM »

(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.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 20, 2020, 05:36:39 PM »

(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"?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 12, 2020, 11:04:28 AM »

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.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 12, 2020, 11:00:53 AM »

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.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 10, 2020, 01:03:21 PM »

@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.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 09, 2020, 02:54:51 AM »

@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.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 06, 2020, 07:39:19 PM »

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.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 04, 2020, 09:48:00 PM »

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?

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?