That stuff is just gravy. The meat is scientific observation and analysis. A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject. It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.
It is indeed, and I'm all for scientific observation and analysis. I've actually read a lot of your posts and I agree with @james38, you are incredibly eloquent in your writing style, sometimes overly so, to the point it can come across as like you are doing it on purpose in an attempt to confuse. However, you're a researcher, clearly educated, and it's actually refreshing to read compared to some of the nonsense I've read. I disagree on your insistence that we do not use the word belief, but then I disagree on a few things I've seen you write about. Belief does not just have meaning in relation to religion/mythology. That's just your opinion and chosen use of the word is it not? I can believe something to be true, like "I believe I left the light on downstairs". I don't know that because I'm not sure, but I can prove it by going downstairs and making an observation. Now I know that I left the light on.
For a man of such eloquence, I find it odd that you think that mass is not real and cannot be rigorously defined. Mass is just a quantity, an amount of "stuff". The unit is somewhat irrelevant. If you have 10 bowling balls, it doesn't matter where you take those bowling balls in the universe, you will still have 10 bowling balls. Doesn't matter if it's here on Earth, on the Moon, or the outer reaches of the galaxy. What does change is the thing we call weight, because weight is directly proportional to the amount of mass measured in gravity. Those 10 bowling balls will be heavier on Earth compared to the Moon for example. But, you also say that gravity is not real. So what is gravity then? If you are a man of science and are dismissing all of the accepted theories and laws that describe gravity and how objects behave in relation to each other, surely you must have your own alternatives that scientifically prove these facts? I mean, on the one hand you quote pascals law which fundamentally relies on such things, yet on the other you say mass and gravity are not real, which means weight isn't real either under that definition - indeed you say it's just an intrinsic property of matter. Yes it is, matter in gravity has weight.
Again, reading what you've put elsewhere about things at rest cannot be in constant acceleration because that violates the law of energy conservation. How? When you jump out of an aeroplane, for arguments sake let's just say you fall down towards the Earth (or it rises up to you) at a rate of 9.81m/s^2. At this point you have an amount of kinetic energy. When you finally meet the Earth, you stop (and probably die!). You are no longer in motion because the Earth's surface is stopping you - you now have potential energy. The Earth is, in effect, pushing up towards you with the equivalent force, thus you feel weight, thus preserving the law of energy conservation. I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that concept.
The thing about a vacuum being abhorrent in nature is also extremely bizarre. I am going to assume that you do know the difference between what we call the vacuum of space, and what we call suction. Only reason I say this is because plenty of people don't, and they assume that the vacuum of space would suck away our atmosphere just like our vacuum cleaner sucks up dust from our carpet. Suction is a consequence of creating a vacuum in the presence of an atmosphere, and is actually a pushing force. I'm sure you knew, apologies, but others may not. Anyway, if the notion of an infinite vacuum above our heads is offensively stupid and unscientific, what wouldn't be stupid and more scientific? I know you conclude that the Earth cannot be a sphere. What I'm not sure about is if you subscribe to the flat Earth theory that we are constantly accelerating upwards to account for what we call gravity. If you do, and we are, one of two things are needed for us to have air to breath:
1. A dome to contain it, or
2. An infinite column of air above us
Both sound offensively stupid to me, but then that's why I'm here - to learn more about flat Earth theory and how best to approach it. I know an alternative flat Earth theory has been put forward that we are not accelerating upwards, but instead we have an infinitely large flat disc with finite gravity. Again, that sounds offensively stupid to me, but the same reasoning applies in my view.
On the more relevant topic of proof, and the shape of the Earth, I have three direct observations made by myself that require little to no complex science or understanding:
1. Reproduction of Eratosthenes experiment - shadows of different lengths in different parts of the Earth at the same time (was surprisingly accurate!)
2. A friend of mine has a small boat, and we often sail out on a river that just happens to head towards, and past, a tall radio mast. The mast appears from the top down.
3. The reverse of 2, viewing a cruise ship sailing out to sea. It clearly disappears from the bottom up.
I know, these might be considered clichés, but these aren't some observations I've read about and taken as blind faith. I've seen them myself, and repeated with friends. I can therefore conclude from these findings that the Earth cannot be flat, and must be one of the following shapes:
A. Sphere-like
B. Ovoid-like
C. Disc-like (where we live on the outer edge)
D. Ring-like (where we live on the outer edge)
E. Cylinder-like (where we live on the outer edge)
The fact that multiple people all over the Earth experience 2 and 3 quite routinely no matter what their location or direction of travel means that either A or B can be the only logical explanation. With millennia of additional scientific observation, exploration, surveillance, aerial photography and space exploration on top of that, I have no reason to posit that the Earth is anything but A. Whether it is or isn't, whether NASA are lying or not, life will just go on as it is anyway so it's all a bit moot really! I'll leave it at that for now because loads of different things are getting discussed and debated at once now and is getting hard enough to follow as it is.
Appreciate your input, it's genuinely fascinating.
Edit:
I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.
This experiment?
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+ExperimentThe experiment that proves the Earth is curved so gets disregarded because it doesn't fit the flat Earth narrative? I'd love to know why you find the methodology flawed, because from what I can see:
- The experiment was carried out on a frozen lake, so the surface was ice. Ice is water.
- Every effort was made to make sure points of reference were made at the same elevation.
- Every effort was made to reduce the effects of refraction caused by the cold surface and density gradient.
- All of the numbers, calculations, laws of refraction, observations and reasoning are provided.
All this does is one thing - prove that the Earth's surface curves, and it correlates with my own observations as well. At the very least it means it's not flat.