@james38
To anyone who is not a flat earther,
I am not a flat earther, nor do I know any, but in casual (and sometimes specific/in-depth) conversation I am sometimes mistaken for one - so I'll go ahead and respond!
I don't believe in anything since I'm an atheist? Correct me if I'm wrong.
As a human being, you believe LOTS of things. One of those things is that there is no god. The fundamental posit/premise/tenet of atheism is the faith/belief that no god does, and for many - possibly can, exist.
Many people mistake that because they are educated, that they do not harbor faith and belief. All humans do - they must. It is critical that we identify the beliefs that are masquerading in our hearts and minds as facts, and even truth. Acknowledging they are there is the first step.
To be objective, let alone scientific / scientists, takes enormous effort against our nature. Constant and unending. It is against that natural belief/bias/delusion that we must constantly struggle!
The scientific method can be used to test a hypothesis related to the shape of an object.
No. Once again, sadly, this comes down to semantics. A hypothesis is a speculation on the cause and effect of an observed phenomenon. "The earth [or any object] is a particular shape" is not a hypothesis, nor is it a valid one. It is not that from/during the scientific method you cannot determine an object's shape, it's just that there is only one way to do that - rigorous and repeated measurement. There is no other way, please correct me if I'm wrong!
Now, I think I know what you are thinking - but it is only because you (we) were taught incorrect definitions of science, scientific method, and experiment (that we were taught by those that ALSO did not know the correct definitions themselves) that you think the scientific method can be used to determine anything / answer any question - but it cannot. There is MUCH more to discuss here!
Measurement can determine an object's precise dimensions and shape.
Correct. In fact, that's the only way! In your example, the rolling and watching is the, extremely crude, inferential measurement. Direct measurement is always best if possible, especially when you want/need certainty.
Measurements can be used in scientific experiments.
In fact, they have to be! But measurements are not experiments. You have to measure the world to determine its shape. Experiment has no use in this regard.
How does this point fit into your larger perspective, anyway?
The correct and working definitions of science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment are at the core of scientific analysis, evaluation, and study/discussion. Most of us were taught incorrect and not-working definitions for those words and because so few become proper scientists - the definitions remain wrong and their facility and understanding of science remains broken. Many are misled through "education" that the shape of the earth can (and has) been determined by experiment. This displays and conveys a profound lack of scientific competency, that needs to be rectified if understanding and discussing science is to become possible!
I'm really curious how you visualize this (and I know its just an idea, you don't have to defend it I'm just curious). Is it like the world from Halo?
As I said, I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is. I have no conceptualization of it, and I lack the verifiable and verified data required to make such a determination with certainty. I know that water's surface does not curve at rest and this makes the vast majority of the water on earth (+70% by our estimates), essentially, flat. It suggests the world is mostly flat, but does not suggest the shape of entire thing.
In regards to the speculation of the "ring" of south pole encircling the north - the idea is that the earth is more like a ring magnet than a spherical/bar magnet. The "south pole" to someone standing on the ring magnet would always be away from north, but the "lines of force" constantly diverge until there is no more magnet left. In that case, there is no one south pole but rather there are infinite south poles encircling the north pole at the center. Let me know if you need a graphic on this one. This is a speculation regarding the magnetic field, not the shape of the world.
Can you please back up all your scientific claims?
I can, but I do not intend to submit cited research papers, only to engage in rational discourse! I am happy to provide supporting detail whenever I can!
Here's one of many!
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/rare-moon-rock-found-on-earth-573216. Sorry I didn't bother to track down the published papers - but it is reasonably well known that "moonrocks" have no non-terrestrial components - as was originally, erroneously, thought and advertised. Some see this as further supporting their religious beliefs that the moon was created from the earth in a "beautiful, constructive, and creative EXPLOSION" (this is not something that happens) but many of us are not as hopeful, gullible or hindered by bias/belief/religion/mythology.
And as for radiometric dating methods not working, here is another one of many :
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html. This claim will undoubtedly take more research for you to validate, however I have confirmed it repeatedly.
Because this subject has no school, teachers, curriculum, textbooks etc. - autodidacticism is not optional. You will benefit from doing the research yourself in a way you can/will never if I spoon feed / clockwork orange you. Building strong research skills is essential. Surface deep, you could have found support (or refutation) for these claims quickly, but that is not the case with many of the claims I make. If you earnestly cannot find evidence to support (or refute) a claim, let me know and I'll be happy to help in any way I can!
and the experiments by 3rd party researchers found evidence that is consistent with them being moon rocks.
You misunderstand. When we perform sample analysis, it is by comparison! We cannot confirm a rock is a "moonrock" except by comparison with other known and confirmed moonrocks! You have no evidence they are moonrocks in the first order, nor does anyone (and there is ample evidence they are terrestrial).
And if we already agree that a global conspiracy it too unlikely to have taken place, this makes the most likely scenario that both missions truly went to the moon.
Attempting to estimate "likelihood" (from your armchair, most often) is a crummy way to investigate (a crime, or anything else). A global conspiracy is very unlikely in both our views, but you are once again mistakenly assuming a grand coordinated conspiracy when small mostly uncoordinated ones will do just as well! In any case, regardless of which untrustworthy source you receive the samples of "moonrocks" from (the us military / cia / nazi scientists or the ussr/kgb) the samples are highly suspect and have no trustworthy provenance nor 3rd party validation whatsoever. The fact that they are similar when analyzed is interesting but does not establish they are trustworthy sources or that the rocks come from the moon.
That's a fun thought. Makes me want to read about moon gods.
It is! Recognizing you are/have been wrong can be liberating! You might want to check this guy out before you abandon science for mythology/religion (i jest, seriously there are LOTS of good/fascinating ones about the moon) - if you haven't seen him already ... I would like to confirm his existence and find his work if it wasn't scrubbed intentionally.
The tides are in no way caused by the moon. The frequency, timing, location, and amplitude all do not correspond causally (or otherwise in most all cases) to the moon nor any other light in the sky. The moon is not a god, nor does it rule the sea the way our foolish ancestors (and us
) believed! We probably already have enough "claims" (facts, in my view) "in the air" as it were, but this one also deserves/warrants scrutiny before acceptance - like all facts and claims.
Is this your full explanation or do you have any further readings to back this up?
That is the summation. There is much to read and discuss on the subject! The best way forward is to ask specific questions or otherwise respond to the content. If you disagree that the natural behavior of all energy and gas necessarily (and by their nature) prohibits the existence of vacuum (or mass concentration of anything remaining indefinitely) and/or sustained pressure differential with no barrier/obstruction - then respond why! Through discussion we can best discover what to discuss and/or read next.
But if you want to talk science, you have to speak plainly and precisely, even mathematically if possible
Agreed, though that need not preclude eloquence?! Thank you for the compliment, however have you heard that bad poets borrow and good poets steal? The phrase and the phrasing are not mine
. It is thousands of years old, at least, and is an example of truth in my view because it applies across disciplines in a way it ought not.
But saying that "nature abhors it" is giving me nothing tangible that I can work with
Nature does not allow vacuums to exist, and imbalance likewise can only be maintained/persist for limited finite durations - most acutely when there is no obstruction to doing so. To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort. Naturally, vacuums do not exist - nature will not allow them. Air pressure is naturally isobaric / isostatic. I know we will have more to discuss about this to convey / understand!
Seriously, if you want to have [a] ... contest
I do not! I don't want any sort of contest at all! I want us both to be earnestly engaged in the pursuit of truth (or knowledge/fact failing that) together for our common benefit through rational discourse. No contests/debates, no winners and losers, no competition; collaboration instead!
and it was a tangential and purposeless remark anyway
I don't feel that way!
I think you felt it and thought it (perhaps still do!), and you expressed it earnestly and without reservation. I think that IS effective communication (or at least, a necessary first step), and pretending like it isn't true (and/or avoiding saying it) to either yourself or to me is detrimental. I am well aware that my views are unpopular, and seem extreme at first glance - crazy even! If you don't express that you feel that way and why, I may never understand that that is the case and may never be able to discuss and, ideally, convey to you why, although it seems radical/extreme, it isn't in actuality - or at least not as extreme as it seems at first glance (which is, granted, radically extreme to many if not most).
was expressing a feeling when I said your perspective sounded biased and extreme and that's all it was.
We are our feelings too! I side with captain kirk, as spock (pure logic) does - and for the same reasons (hopefully you are a trek fan...). Our emotions are a strength, and ignoring/suppressing/repressing them has terrible consequences. I'm glad you expressed it, and hope you continue to do so! We can express emotion and make progress in our discussion, and I contend that we must!
So where exactly is the logical contradiction between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the existence of space? I want to get into all of this.
Excellent! Asking specific questions / responding to specific content like this is the best way to do so!
"Space" is defined as a (mostly) empty void - if we get too detailed we get derailed by sophistry so I hope this is just specific enough for you to agree with.
The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure. When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it. That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area. It's a law. It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.
This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law. If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly. I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.
We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest. Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem - nor stop gasses from behaving as they demonstrably do where the "gravity" is believed strongest/greatest. If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law. This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".
Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to read through every reference in the wiki
I suspect that may be somewhat less than completely true, and I really do think the small amount of time it would take to get through it would be well worth it, but I hear you and am happy to give you my distilled view as best as possible.
But I hope you can agree this in itself is not evidence that NASA's expeditions were faked. It's suspicious, but not a logical contradiction.
Agreed. It is strong evidence that gus and team were right initially (and paid directly with their lives for having their valid concerns dismissed), and the apollo "tech" was deadly garbage throughout its entirety. It is evidence that the expedition we saw on tv is faked, because they lacked the technological ability to do so at the time (which thomas baron independently confirmed, and was rubbed out because of).
I do agree that it could all be coincidence, and that thomas baron could have been killed for gambling debts (for all we know), but I don't believe in coincidences and the supporting evidence solidifies the narrative/historical analysis adequately in my view. It certainly isn't proof in and of itself, but it is evidence that something is wrong when the independent oversight is murdered along with his family AND his scathingly critical and exhaustive report goes missing - mysteriously.
I hope we can agree at least at this point that you have no hard evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked.
It doesn't get any harder! The only evidence that exists of "space" writ large is that footage. Finding obvious and blatant fraud in it is the best that can be hoped for. Would nothing less than professor nasa himself admitting he faked the whole thing (and had the "behind the scenes" footage) constitute as "hard" evidence? I think you may be setting the bar too high than to continue to think that nasa footage is "hard evidence" of anything... Proof, "hard evidence", acceptable evidence is subjective - determining your threshold and criteria is critical, as is making them explicit, and keeping them consistent (and yourself objective).
But can we at least agree there is not hard evidence that they did not go?
I fear that we are near a semantical sink hole. If we agree that footage and pictures aren't hard evidence then there isn't any discussion anymore because that is all of "space" that exists in the first order beyond some "moonrocks" that are terrestrially composed. It all depends on the definition of the subjective term "hard evidence". Hard evidence to me is tangible and physical, not purely narrative/deductive etc. These pictures qualify as hard evidence to me, and it seems you feel the same way (just oppositely).
However, if you're ultimate goal is to measure the shape of the planet, wouldn't you agree it's not enough?
Absolutely! Only rigorous and repeated measurement of the entire world can determine the shape of the entire world with certainty. However, going back to the subjective/personal criteria i mentioned above - the measurement of the curve (or distinct lack thereof, which we always measure at rest) would be enough to establish the globe posit as a part of empirical science (for the first time, mind you) and suggest spherical is a possible and arguably even likely shape for the world.
Even if you have a perfect measreument of the frozen lake, that doesn't translate directly to the shape of the entire world.
Agreed. However your valid procedural concerns for the observation can (and should) be mitigated! One of the most important and fundamental aspects of empirical science is rigorous and repeated measurement. By merely repeating the measurement alone, we can increase our confidence in it and address much of your concerns.
Ok, I'll try to use this definition for "experiment" moving forward.
Excellent! Thank you. It is critical, and is a "working definition". I use it because it is correct/works and fits all cases. If it can be demonstrated to not work, it is important to change it - but so far I have found no fault in it. It is the best criteria I know of to discern science from pseudoscience masquerading as it.
But I'm not sure about your ring theory, which I need to hear more about. What do you think?
The ring "theory" is purely about the magnetic field. It need not have any correlation to physical shape, though many who toy with the notion conceptualize the world's surface as a circular disc - much like the ring magnet it correlates to (usually without the hole in the center, but not always!).
I think it is reasonable, but sadly impractical / logistically nightmarish. If we had the magic tape measure it might be quicker/more convincing to just measure latitude lines, assuming they are verified to remain equidistant from the north pole AND assuming a "disc" or otherwise planar earth (and that our maps are right). If the world is in fact flat, and latitude lines are in fact always equidistant to the north pole - then after the equator, they should continue to grow indefinitely (to the bounds of the earth, if such a thing there be)
I did a bit of searching for this but couldn't find anything good. Any published research?
https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/257846https://fgcu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fgcu%3A28314https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htmI most highly recommend lockhaven.edu, it's excellent.
I look forward to more discussion!