Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2020, 09:26:42 PM »
@james38

Quote
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!

Quote
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!

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
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!

Quote
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).

Quote
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!

Quote
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".

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

Quote
I did a bit of searching for this but couldn't find anything good. Any published research?

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/257846
https://fgcu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fgcu%3A28314
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

I most highly recommend lockhaven.edu, it's excellent.

I look forward to more discussion!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 03:21:30 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2020, 02:21:42 AM »

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.

I appreciate that and no need to improve your demeanor at all. I was just concerned that what was a constructive debate is descending into an us vs them free-for-all, of which there is no shortage of on the internet already. You have to admit, the treatment of those who take the flat earth/alternative view point in recent years has been truly despicable to say the least. The media, online forums, "scientific community" and the general public, all who claim to be more progressive and respectful of alternative ideas, have held little more than disdain for the flat earth concept; a sheep mentality of weaponized ignorance. Any form of meaningful discussion has been massively censored and any scope for growth has been hammered down at almost every corner of the internet. Thats my impression at least.

This perception has stifled the development of these alternative ideas. The lack of experimentation and peer reviewed scientific articles supporting flat earth theory is not an indicator of it's illegitimacy or lack of scientific footing; it is as a result of the perception imposed by the media and embraced by the general public. Ridiculing "flat earthers" has never been as popular as it is now. No college, scientific journal, phd student is going to risk their livelihood to research these topics. Hence the severe lack of sources that many of us would consider trustworthy. With this in mind, be very careful about drawing conclusions on what you think is evidence against flat earth theory. Despite the beliefs of many, the accepted form of science is not infallible, it is simply a placeholder until a better explanation is found.



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.

Before I get onto the harnesses, and the CGI and hair washing etc. I have to address this idea around a conspiracy that you appear to get hung up on. Why do you think there has to be a conspiracy?  You need to understand that NASA, as an organisation, and the idea of there being no outer space can coexist without there being a conspiracy.

Just think of it from the perspective of the person in charge of the organisation. You have billions of dollars allocated to you per year from a governmental source above you. If you've ever worked in a competitive company you would know that if your department doesn't spend the money, it won't be allocated the same funds the next year. These executives and project managers are under real pressure to spend this money. But thats no problem - they have huge R&D departments, managerial teams, consultants, marketing departments, administration departments to pour capital into and thats before they have even built any rockets. The rockets and all the structures required to launch are built by contractors. A contractor wins a bid to build the thrusters or a gimballing mechanism or a hatch. (I had a lecturer in college who won a contract to head a project on material selection for a coupler system to allow a rocket to dock on the ISS). There is absolutely no doubt that there is lots of work being carried out at NASA, nobody denies this. I think we can all agree that they build rockets and they blast them off in the sky. This we are 100% in agreement on and there is no conspiracy here.

What we disagree on forms such a miniscule facet to the organisation on a whole. And that is: What happens after the rocket goes out of sight? For this we are completely reliant on what NASA shows us. You believe we are shown footage from space. I believe the rocket crashes in the ocean and what we are shown by NASA is nothing more than an artists impression of what space is.

Take this example: Every astrophysicist knows that the picture of the black hole published a few years back was little more than an artists impression created for the sole purpose of creating something digestible for the general public. Something that would encapsulate all the hard work done by the scientists so that they could get the public recognition they deserved. The real detection of the black hole lay in spectrophotometric data - but the public doesn't care about this.

The footage we are shown in space is no different. It's little more than digestible material for the benefit of the public to recognise the hard work by the scientists and engineers and contractors and also to justify the billions of dollars that is poured into the organisation every year. There is still no need for a conspiracy here. The marketing team receive a portfolio and funds just like all the other departments. They are under pressure to create this promotional material. They hire actors, build studios, video editors, carry out many parabolic flights. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy, they are just fulfilling the portfolio they've been given to create footage of "outer space" that is digestible to the public.

Neil Armstrong, Buzz and Michael Collins weren't in on any conspiracy either - they were just tasked with shooting footage to sell to the public to give the impression that we succeeded in going to the moon, with the added benefit of taking their mind off the Vietnam war and to fulfill the dream of JFK - that is all! All of this can exist without there being any lies or sinister intentions.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 655
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2020, 03:08:34 AM »
Mark,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the start. The reason I came to this site was because the talking heads you find on youtube - on both sides - are, for the most part, intolerable.

I'm curious to learn about different view points and ways of explaining things, so I came here and started asking questions.

I agree that scientific advances are very often too complicated for the general public to digest, and your example of the black hole is completely valid.

I do think you could re evaluate your position on NASA and rockets. Perhaps if you tried to pin down where NASAs capabilities end and the conspiracy begins.

I would also agree that a few pictures, in themselves, do not add much 'proof'. But I would counter that some of the clips of astronauts on the ISS, many of which (like the water wringing video) were pulled from an extended LIVE VIDEO STREAM (sorry for the angry-looking emphasis there), create a significant body of evidence of NASAs capacity to delivery astronauts to orbit. The water- wringing video was part of an extended Q&A session with school children.

The last point I would make is that it might seem like an extraordinary claim, arguing there are currently people in space. And to be fair, it is extraordinary.

When I need to make an argument in science that defies common-held views, I try to dissect it into smaller pieces. As an example, we can definitely send huge rockets up into the air, higher than we can see with our eyes. Videos using significant zoom can track them even further. We know there is no barrier as high up as around 60 km based on live data feeds from weather balloons. Satellites are whirling around the earth at all times, providing us with internet, phone and TV signals, shooting stars can be observed moving in all directions in the night sky, suggesting the lack of a physical barrier between what's above earth and what's further beyond, it also suggests there is relative motion between earth and other things out there.  That's my thought process at least. I ask myself what I need to know and what I need to believe for a claim to be true. To me it seems a lot more likely that NASA is pretty good at building rockets than that they have cornered the market on live CGI/augmented reality decades ahead of the best current capabilities.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2020, 12:45:06 PM »
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!

...

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".

I will agree with you in the literal sense - even in the vast reaches of sciences definition of the Universe, there is no complete, total vacuum.  Close to, but not quite.  So, by definition nature doesn't like a total vacuum, only partial.  However, I don't agree with the statement that weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter.  That definition is only needed because you don't think gravity exists, and because gravity doesn't exist, mass cannot be real either, and so you have to come to that independent conclusion.  It's a bit like a flat Earther thinking the Earth is flat, and so that means all other observations must conform to support that thinking.  If there is no gravity, and the "weight" of the air is able to create its own pressure gradient, how is the air being contained?

Also, if weight is an intrinsic property of matter, wouldn't you expect a cannon ball dropped from a tall tower to reach the Earth faster than a golf ball?  If not, why not?  In the real world we see things fall at the same rate because something with more mass is harder to move that something with less mass, so the effects cancel out.  If gravity doesn't exist and mass isn't real, the only thing impacting their fall to Earth (neglecting air resistance) would be their intrinsic weight.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 12:46:51 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2020, 03:45:43 PM »
Mark,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying at the start. The reason I came to this site was because the talking heads you find on youtube - on both sides - are, for the most part, intolerable.

I'm curious to learn about different view points and ways of explaining things, so I came here and started asking questions.
This we are completely in agreement on. The polarizing views of many stifle useful debate.


I agree that scientific advances are very often too complicated for the general public to digest, and your example of the black hole is completely valid.

I do think you could re evaluate your position on NASA and rockets. Perhaps if you tried to pin down where NASAs capabilities end and the conspiracy begins.
This is something I think about regularly. While my post above argued against the need for a global conspiracy on a massive scale, I do think it is likely that there are large groups (military personnel, freemasons, political figures for example) who are in the know, have huge financial interests and have influence in the direction these organizations go. Jack Parsons, L Ron Hubbard, Werner Von Braun all with interests in science fiction, all with shady origins, played a huge role in the deception. Armstrong, Buzz etc. all contributors. The "victims" of the challenger and columbia disasters know for sure. Chris Hadfield, Scott Kelly and Elon Musk are definitely big public names who I believe know.

Saying that they did a good job keeping the secret is not exactly accurate either. Most of them in their final years revealed hints at these deceptions. Von Braun allegedly confided in his assistant in the weeks before his death that there will, in future, be a space based defense program to defend from threats from outer space. He told her the threats will all be a lie (first 5 mins of this should be enough: ) We have since heard Trump refer to a space defense program. Van Braun's gravestone holds another message. Neil armstrong made very few public appearances. I believe he was a very honest man, and I think his conscience weighed heavily on him (Buzz is far more dishonest). Neil referred to "breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". We have a former senior CIA officer admit that NASA was the branch that drove the deception:


With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.


I would also agree that a few pictures, in themselves, do not add much 'proof'. But I would counter that some of the clips of astronauts on the ISS, many of which (like the water wringing video) were pulled from an extended LIVE VIDEO STREAM (sorry for the angry-looking emphasis there), create a significant body of evidence of NASAs capacity to delivery astronauts to orbit. The water- wringing video was part of an extended Q&A session with school children.
Don't get me wrong, the technology they are using here is incredibly advanced. But so is the technology in the film industry. The Martian, Ad Astra, First Man, Gravity, Interstellar - all very convincing .The footage we have from space over the years always held the same quality as the cutting-edge in film technology. They use video layers, chromakey/green screens, VR headsets. You can often see from their eyes that they've had the VR headset edited out and their eyes stitched back on with CGI. Often times the astronauts aren't even in the same room as each other but they are stitched into one scene.

Most of the clips they claim are live, simply are not; they are pre-recorded, the kids are asking set questions. They do have software to filter out harnesses in live interviews like the one above with the somersault. These genuine live interviews are incredibly rare however as they are often heavy with gaffes. The "single shot" ISS tour was not a single shot. They are inside a vertically fixed studio set. the camera faces upwards - you can tell by the vein in their foreheads that they are hanging downwards. There is a break in the video segments when they pass the camera over. The point the camera spins is when they switch the video segment. They use the reverse image inlay as a way of strengthening the deception here as it makes it look like there are astronauts on both sides of the camera when in fact there is not. The clip of the woman washing her hair is during a parabolic flight. You can clearly see how they shot this over multiple takes - there are about 10 needless transitions in the video. The sound of the engines in the background is a key indicator for parabolic flights.

I said I would provide more proof of the harnesses. This video gives a nice summary and isn't too sensationalist:











Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2020, 04:56:48 PM »
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.
I don't think rockets break any laws of physics. This is one of the objections used to 'disprove' any pictures of space or any videos of astronauts on the space station. Since the astronauts would most likely agree that the earth is round they would be eye witnesses to that fact and could carry the 'Burden of Proof' for the round earth a long ways.
 
Don't be afraid of discussing how rockets work it because of the fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge required.  I am an engineer and have math & physics books handy!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 05:13:11 PM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2020, 05:07:55 PM »
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.

I know you don't want to go off on a tangent, but, this is the most intriguing and telling bit for me.  Newton's laws are called laws for a reason - they apply everywhere.  Newtons first law is stated subtly differently depending where you look, and yours is one just one example.  However, it's the action of "a force" or "an imbalance of forces" that cause something to change its state.  This could be external to the object, or it could be the object itself causing the imbalance.

The whole "action-reaction" bit is Newton's third law, and a jet works by sucking in air from its surroundings and thrusting it out of the back at high speed.  So yes, by pure definition a jet that relies on sucking in air and throwing it out of the back won't work in space.  However, rockets are not jets.  A rocket engine creates its own thrust because the fuel contains an oxidiser as well, allowing it to combust in the absence of air/oxygen.  In this case, the rocket and its fuel together act as one object and the ejection of exhaust gases itself causes the imbalance of forces that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction.

Maybe it's a misconception that people think something is needed to push against?  A simple experiment is to just sit in a swivel chair and fling your arms out in one direction.  The chair moves a bit in the opposite direction (only a bit because of friction and the low force involved).  That's not me pushing against the air, it's just Newtons third law in action.  Same with throwing a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, perfectly fine example.  Brushing it under a carpet of complex maths and engineering just makes it sound like part of yet another conspiracy, this time involving the laws of physics. 

In space, or a very thin atmosphere if you will, even a tiny jet of air can cause a change in motion because there is very little resistance.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 06:35:05 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2020, 09:03:44 PM »
@rhesusvx

Quote
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.

We are in complete agreement.  This is an example of the correct use of the word belief.  Belief is not always religious, but is always contingent on faith - which is one of the hallmarks of religion. The religion I most often speak out against is called scientism (though I am a heretic to all faiths, scientism included).

 
Quote
I find it odd that you think that mass is not real and cannot be rigorously defined. 

It was quite the revelation for me I can tell you.  I had to learn the correct definitions of science and the scientific method first, before I could make progress separating the science from pseudoscience.  The fact that mass and gravity are not / cannot be rigorously defined or measured is well known in advanced physics - not so much amongst the laypeople and undergrads.  The (minorly) radical aspect of my view is that neither are real, but it is only a short skip away from the established view when viewed objectively.

Quote
Mass is just a quantity, an amount of "stuff".

No, this is not correct. There are generations of high school and undergrad students that learned the same, but it has been determined (repeatedly) that mass is not the measure of "stuff" by any measurable metric.  It isn't so much a an outright "lie" as it is an inaccurate and misleading oversimplification / misrepresentation designed to be just "good enough" to shut the students up and get to the next lesson.

Quote
or the outer reaches of the galaxy

There is no such place, and there may well be no physical moon either.  That's all sci-fi, as it always was.  I like sci-fi too.  In any case, science is studied on earth.  That's the only place we can make partial provisional statements (the maximum certainty possible in science) about.  Speculations about fictional places, or places we cannot or have not been is not science - it's fiction.

Quote
So what is gravity then?

Almost no one has any idea. I have figured it out, and I am not alone.  It is mathematical fiction with no reality whatsoever.  Weight is all there is, an inexorable and intrinsic property of all matter.

Quote
surely you must have your own alternatives that scientifically prove these facts?

Scientific proof comes only, and still - only tentatively/provisionally, through experiment (or in the case of natural law, rigorous and repeated measurement alone).  The equations don't change much, and are not relevant to manifest objective reality in any way.  Mass and gravity are mathematical fiction that exist only in equation.  They annihilate one another to return to the real and measured weight they started as, and this is NOT coincidence and requires minor accommodation.  Some equations, that use mass alone, will need a new concept / rebranding called intrinsic weight - which is the weight in vacuum.  Resistance to motion - inertia is caused/correlated directly by/to the intrinsic weight of the object - which, unlike mass, is measurable.  No mass science denial/eschewing or "physics bashing" is occurring here - we are talking about minor and simple changes.

Quote
I'm sure you knew, apologies, but others may not. 

This is true. Many of the things I repeat are for the same reason.  They bare repeating!

 
Quote
if the notion of an infinite vacuum above our heads is offensively stupid and unscientific, what wouldn't be stupid and more scientific?

Good question! My first reaction is that I just do the demo - contractor doesn't come until I haul all this old junk away first.  My second reaction is that one of the most scientific answers is "I/we don't know".  My third reaction is that science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the exception of natural law, which is established through rigorous measurement alone).  The scientific method can only be used on things we can manipulate.  Manipulation is required for experiment, and experiment is not an optional part of the scientific method.

We cannot perform experiment on or in "space" and the only people who claim they can and do are the MIC, who are not trustworthy.  Astronomy/astrophysics is attempting to establish natural law by watching the lights in the sky, but there is no reason for anything they concoct mathematically to have any relevance on earth (unless of course, you are an astrologer).  No experiment is possible in either discipline, and they are among the most unreliable and least accurate "sciences" in existence - though still profoundly better and more actually science than things like anthropology or economics ever could be.  Primarily astronomy and astrophysics are mythology masquerading as science because they are created by looking, making explanations up wholesale, and then looking some more - which is how mythology is made.

Quote
1. A dome to contain it, or
2. An infinite column of air above us

These are two possible conceptions, yes.

Quote
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 think it is important to remember the distinction between simple and stupid.  In any case, they are merely the speculations of inquisitive minds and we must be careful not to shun such things!  Also, reality is often stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged to possibilities.

Quote
Again, that sounds offensively stupid to me, but the same reasoning applies in my view.

Fundamentally, there is nothing stupid or unscientific about swapping/flipping conventions - as long as you are consistent.  Astronomy and astrophysics work the same when the universe is conceptualized/modeled spinning around a stationary earth as when the earth is conceptualized to whirl and zoom instead/as well.  As long as you are consistent, the science is correct.  Making gravity the earth rising up is not indefensible, scientifically. Though it is silly - that doesn't make it untrue! Science is the best way we know of to determine what is actually happening!

Quote
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.

All 3 observations (none of them are in any way experiments) are real and valid! It is only the interpretations of them that are incorrect because of profound amounts of unvalidated (and incorrect) assumption (bias) required for them.

There is only one way to determine the shape of the world, even just on a small/local scale.  Merely looking at things, mistaking them for "measurements", and declaring with undue certainty that your explanation of them is the only one possible doesn't fly in real science.  There are good, understandable, and most importantly - validatible through measurement - reasons why your interpretations, mandated in "school" through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, do not bare scrutiny and have more sound and scientifically consistent alternate explanations.

Quote
means that either A or B can be the only logical explanation

Incorrect.

Quote
I have no reason to posit that the Earth is anything but A.

You and most everyone else! That's why it was so easy to have wrong for so long - it is largely inconsequential!  There's no reason to question or thoroughly critically evaluate it - especially with any sort of funding.

Quote
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 agree.  Nasa and any conspiracy or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to the shape of the world.  It's a red herring.

Quote
Appreciate your input, it's genuinely fascinating

Excellent! I do aim to please!

Quote
I'd love to know why you find the methodology flawed

Most specifically, because it does not measure the surface of the water - and that is the whole point.  Other reasons are lack of repetition (multiple locations / averagings), lack of multiple measurement techniques for verification/validation (specifically physical tangible lines being utilized, ideally), and general reliance on purely passive optical observations (known to be misleading) for "measurement".

In any case, it is in no way an experiment.  It will take some time to undo the damage done to science by bad/incorrect definitions being taught to so many.

Quote
At the very least it means it's not flat.

It may suggest that it isn't flat specifically where they observed it, but even that is questionable because no physical measurement was taken - it was merely inferred from what was viewed.  Often times what we see is not what is, and our interpretation of it is often wrong even when it IS.  Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them. - obi wan


Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2020, 09:17:47 PM »
or it could be the object itself causing the imbalance.
It simply can't. This very point is why I'm not getting into the topic. Thankfully we have a first hand source for Newton's Law (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) The one I cut and paste above was from NASA's own website, admittedly an unreliable source  ;)

Here is the direct Law from Principia:

Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

Direct translation:
Law I: Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless in so far as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon
This word "impressed" what does this mean? Thankfully Newton didn't want any ambiguity or misinterpretation of his laws by dubious future space administrations - so he gave clear definitions:

Def IV
Vis impressa est actio in corpus exercita, ad mutandum ejus statum vel
quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum.
Consistit hæc vis in actione sola, neq; post actionem permanet in corpore.
Perseverat enim corpus in statu omni novo per solam vim inertiæ. Est autem
vis impressa diversarum originum, ut ex ictu, ex pressione, ex vi centripeta


Direct Translation:

Definition IV:
An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change
its state, either of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line.
This force consists in the action only; and remains no longer in the body,
when the action is over. For a body maintains every new state it acquires,
by its vis inertiæ only. Impressed forces are of different origins as from
percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force.


He makes it abundantly clear countless times in the context of the document that "impressed forces" are those from different origins.

You cannot create your own external force. This is the last post I'm making on this topic.

Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2020, 09:59:30 PM »
@jack44556677

Many thanks for taking the time to amicably respond to each of the points, much appreciated.  I can wrap my head around a lot of the equivalencies, and the notion of weight being intrinsic is not ridiculous in of itself.  Lots of things in the world are bonkers when you think about it!  It’s all food for thought, and you are absolutely right about the fact that your eyes don’t always see things as they are ;)

@Mark Antony

I don’t quite agree.  In the vacuum of space, if I were holding onto the rocket and I pushed hard against it, I would accelerate backwards at the same rate the rocket is accelerated forwards.  Crucially, the combined relative velocities remain at zero, and the combined centre of mass remains at the origin in my frame of reference.  The third law is therefore still respected because as a whole there is no net change.  With a rocket burning its fuel and creating thrust and pressure in the engine bell, it’s basically the same principle.

I think it’s an important point because if the claim is that NASA is a conspiracy and that we have never been into space, part of the debate around that conspiracy is the claimed inability of rockets to work in the partial vacuum of space.  It’s all related.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2020, 10:18:44 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #70 on: November 15, 2020, 01:26:26 AM »
@james38

Quote
It's arguably a personal attack to call the other's views "offensively stupid".

It is, arguably.  However, I personally feel that we should, and should encourage others to, viciously/rigorously attack the thoughts - just never the thinker.  There is a popularized misconception, fostered in school, that having stupid ideas makes YOU stupid.  This is something we need to set straight.  All of us think stupid things, and are stupid.  Stupid is an aspect of humanity, not an archetype. The greatest "geniuses" that have ever lived all thought and believed embarrassingly stupid things.  There is no shame in it nor does it have bearing on intellect or competency.

Quote
I think its pointless and sad for us to insult each other's intelligence.

Oh, there's a point alright - the (attempted) prevention of communication/discussion when done disingenuously...  Sadly there are many disingenuous about.  In any case I agree that ad hominem is only across purposes to learning, teaching, and communicating.

Quote
I'm asking everyone to stay patient with each other

Agreed!

@RhesusVX

Quote
The “offensive stupid” thing wasn’t a direction at anyone, just repeating back what I’ve seen written because I actually believed the very statement itself to be the same.

It was an emotional/evocative description for rhetorical impact, which you used in kind.  I certainly did not see it as any kind of ad hominem or attack of the thinker - hopefully no one else did in my usage.  It is helpful to remember that we were most all indoctrinated through the same (or extremely similar) "educational" process.  We were all required to believe and repeat the same things, and there is no us vs them - it's all just us.  I was also required to learn and repeat the offensively stupid mythology of the "solar system" and "space" - as most all of us were.  Dissent/disagreement was not an option.

I am also of the "sticks and stones" position and words only have the power over you that you give them.

Quote
I think where it starts to become derogatory is when FET supporters go out of their way to simply state that RET supporters are wrong and that we have all been fed lies, yet provide no rationale.

Rationale is not lacking.  I think you are trying to express your displeasure with the rationale itself (and evidence), not the lack thereof.  Is it derogatory to tell a scientologist that they believe in nonsense?  I don't think so.  Is it derogatory to tell a student that they're wrong (with accompanying rationale or not)?  We have been fed many lies, that much is clear, obvious, and denied by few who have given it adequate thought/evaluation - the bugger is figuring out which ones (and then sharing our findings with others)!

Quote
It’s interesting because I don’t consider RET as a cult or faith either.

You are not intended to.  It is by design.  Scientism is a pernicious religion, and they get them young.

Here is my litmus for determining a cult.  All cults have 2 things in common, and by these hallmarks we can recognize them (even if they - the cult members - most often do not)

1. They require acceptance of dogmas on faith.
2. They punish dissent.

By the criteria above it is obvious that RET is a cult (as are most all religions), but it takes a bit more analysis to make that determination with certainty.  There are, sadly, also "pockets" of flat earth researchers, acolytes, and/or believers that absolutely fit the cult criteria above.  As a whole however, there is no FET "community", college, pope etc. - so there can be no institutional punishment for dissent, and the loose affiliation of flat earth researchers fit neither criteria.

Quote
We don’t necessarily go around attesting that the Earth is a globe.

Of course you do! I appreciate that virtually no one goes around claiming that the earth is a globe to other people in daily conversation - however, in this one - that we are having right now - they (RET proponents) absolutely and unequivocally do.  Both implicitly and explicitly.  It would be dishonest for most "educated" to claim that they do not, in fact, claim/attest that the earth is spherical (and more commonly, that they merely believe that it is - and don't think of it at all - nor have they really ever).

Quote
The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.  The burden of proof for the claim that the earth is spherical is required by all claimants.  The "2500 years of science and advancement" are not proof, nor evidence of the claim.  When you evaluate that "room of smoke" (2500 years of ALL the evidences!!!) you find that individual claims and evidences evaporate when you try to evaluate them critically.  In my case, providing evidence and proof that water at rest does not have a curved surface the globe model requires is trivial.  In the presumptive case, the claim that the earth is a sphere is MUCH harder to defend and provide solid support for.  They have to get us young for this reason, but it has no bearing on the convention of the burden of proof.

@Mark Antony

Well said and explained!
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 03:22:45 AM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #71 on: November 15, 2020, 02:59:29 AM »
@james38

Quote
Of course you do! I appreciate that virtually no one goes around claiming that the earth is a globe to other people in daily conversation - however, in this one - that we are having right now - they (RET proponents) absolutely and unequivocally do.  Both implicitly and explicitly.  It would be dishonest for most "educated" to claim that they do not, in fact, claim/attest that the earth is spherical (and more commonly, that they merely believe that it is - and don't think of it at all - nor have they really ever).

The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.  The burden of proof for the claim that the earth is spherical is required by all claimants.  The "2500 years of science and advancement" are not proof, nor evidence of the claim.  When you evaluate that "room of smoke" (2500 years of ALL the evidences!!!) you find that individual claims and evidences evaporate when you try to evaluate them critically.  In my case, providing evidence and proof that water at rest does not have a curved surface the globe model requires is trivial.  In the presumptive case, the claim that the earth is a sphere is MUCH harder to defend and provide solid support for.  They have to get us young for this reason, but it has no bearing on the convention of the burden of proof.

@Mark Antony

Well said and explained!

I will gladly bear the burden of proof.  My life has depended upon the earth being round countless times.  On a ship we use charts and navigation equipment that are all setup according to the round earth model. All the navigational officers are trained to respect that model as well.  Now imagine what would happen if the earth were actually flat and not rotating. There could be egregious navigational errors.  Using round earth navigational techniques on a flat earth would be dangerous.  In the Pacific ocean there are some areas where the water is quite shallow but there's no island.  All these areas are marked on our WGS-84 or British Admiralty Charts we are required to carry.  You can imaging what would happen if any ship, due to a navigational error ran over these mid-ocean reefs and ripped the bottom out.  Any person working in the engine room or down in the cargo holds could easily be killed in such an event.  I've personally been deep in the forepeak tanks and in the engine room bilges while underway.  If the ship hit anything at that time, it would be very bad. 

So given these facts you can see that since I'm still alive and have never been on a ship that ever ran aground in the middle of any ocean I have a lot of confidence in the round earth model as taught to us at the Merchant Marine Academy.  The burden has been accepted and the model has been demonstrated to work by mariners for a long-long time.

Will there ever be a point where the flat earth model can be discarded given the extensive experience that seafarers have with the other model?  What other kind of 'proof' is required?  Don't bother to start looking up the records of all the ship disasters that have occurred in the last 100 years.  There are all kinds of other reasons why bad things happen.  I've always said on any given day there's 1000 ways to die at sea.     
   

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #72 on: November 15, 2020, 03:42:56 AM »
@ronj

Your conviction is laudable, and your gyrocompass premise/data/interpretation is intriguing.

I am not doubting/questioning your certainty, competency, nor experience or knowledge on the matter.

I just think that it is worthy of another thread, specifically about gyrocompasses and related devices.  It also has relevance to pendulums and RLG/FOGs.

Quote
My life has depended upon the earth being round countless times.

Your life depended on the accuracy and use of technology and maps.  If the earth is flat, then those maps and  technology simply function adequately on a flat earth.  Nothing you are saying demonstrates the shape of the earth (though the gyrocompass data you talk about is certainly potential evidence), nor is any technology or map reliant on it for its functional use.  Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.

Quote
What other kind of 'proof' is required?

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty -  rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 04:13:01 AM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #73 on: November 15, 2020, 06:21:33 AM »
Your premise that all the navigational techniques that are assumed to be based upon the round earth model would produce 'adequate' results on a flat earth just doesn't compute.  That would especially apply to navigation South of the equator.  What is known, for sure, is that our navigational techniques were always said to be based upon a round earth.  Saying that the mathematical techniques based upon a round shape would be accurate when translated to a flat shape would have to be followed up with a lot more than words to be believed by real world navigators when accurate results are so important.  Do you have any information that shows how this could possibly work?  This would be of great interest to sailors & pilots world wide!  If we are incorrect in our round earth assumptions we all really need to know! Vague theory just won't help much for something this important.

PS:  For several years a did work aboard some well know research ships.  We weren't out there just traveling back & forth hauling cargo but actually staying out in the ocean for extended periods while scientists studied the earth below the oceans. So, yes there are those who do take measurements.   
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 06:31:27 AM by RonJ »
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #74 on: November 15, 2020, 10:25:44 AM »
@jack44556677

Your blend of science and critique is applauded, but with much respect (something you have definitely earned) a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective, and I don't say that in a derogatory manner because you are clearly very well educated and spoken.  I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them. 

The room of smoke containing 2,500 years worth of evidence evaporating when you critique them individually...the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat.  The ongoing sequence of implications that one theory has on the next winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective.  I know you don't claim that the Earth is Flat, but you do say that it can't be round.  Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground.  The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round.  If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact.

I'm genuinely interested to know which elements of the different theories you do consider accurate.  Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else?  In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory?  I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.

I'm intrigued as to why you think water cannot curve though.  It curves all the time.  If water couldn't curve, it wouldn't be able to fill a round bottomed flask for example.  At the small scale, water forms a meniscus against a surface, it beads up on certain surfaces, and in the absence of gravitational effects, it forms globules as it tries to conform to its lowest energy configuration.  If you take a steady stream of water from a tap, you can induce a movement of that stream using electrostatic forces.  There are all manner of ways in which water does not behave flat/straight.  If you dip a football into a bucket of water and take it out, there's a film of water all around its surface.  Water conforms to internal and external curves all the time.  Granted, you can't pour water onto the football and have it be a meaningful depth all the way around because the forces at play are not very strong, but on a large body like Earth, it's a totally different scale.  If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?

You may say I'm a victim of education, but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend - especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see.  Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved - I've measured it myself with a colleague of mine (on the premise light travels straight, hence I asked you that question earlier).  Sailors at sea will observe the tops of distant mountains or volcanos appearing first before the rest of the mountain reveals itself.  I'll refer back to the Rainy Lake Experiment as well because I'm interested to know why that setup, carried out on a frozen lake, setup with high accuracy and fairness to give flat/round a chance to show itself, is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.

Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained.  By all means people can still maintain that space doesn't exist and that it's all fake, but the maths and physics around it are sound and well understood.  I've got the phone number of a guy who I worked with who literally studied rocket science and I'm sure he'd gladly provide all the examples and explanation needed to back this up.  Here's a YouTube video showing a basic experiment showing thrust in a vacuum.  OK it's not world class, but illustrates the point quite nicely:



Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:



At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society, and for the vast majority of people that's just how it is and they get on with their lives.  Science accepted this long ago and moved on.  The only reason people push the globe Earth narrative with all of its evidence is because there is a group of people claiming it's not round, more specifically, that it's flat.  Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything.  Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here.  Sure, on the RET supporter side we also have people dismissing things in the flat Earth Wiki, but I don't see that as evidence, it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).

I would agree, rigorous measurement is required to determine the shape of the Earth, but I'd also argue that there already has been.  The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 10:57:16 AM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #75 on: November 15, 2020, 04:28:22 PM »
@rhesusvx

Quote
a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective,

When there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theorist", how could I have their perspective?  The term conspiracy theorist is only a derogatory/slander - it has no meaning beyond that.  A conspiracy theorist is a popularized/advertised trope for slander/discrediting, nothing more (nor has it ever been used for anything else, ever).  It doesn't have a meaning or rigorous definition.  If you would like to know more about the origin of the phrase and its use, you may wish to check out this thread for an overview / direction on what to study further https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16815.msg221623#msg221623

Quote
I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them. 

I don't either, but I accept and recognize that it is potentially possible.  It wouldn't be the "government" though, they are FAR too poor and incompetent.  In any case, any "conspiracy" or lack thereof is, as we agree, completely moot and a distraction/red herring from the real topic of the shape of the earth.  This is a discussion about science, but a lot of people (especially the "educated") cannot tell the difference between science and science fiction/pseudoscience.  Learning the correct definitions (of science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment) is a necessary first step.

Quote
the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat.

I agree, more or less.  Anyone who makes the claim that the world is flat (or any shape) does not have the verified and verifiable data to back up their claim with certainty.  There is more evidence consistent with scientific knowledge supporting a flat earth locally (than other shapes), but nothing to suggest the shape of the entire thing.  For that more verified and verifiable data is required (repeated and rigorous measurement of the world)!

Quote
winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective.

Not with the zetetic approach (as I understand it), no.  In any case, optical illusions are often tricky.  I can explain the optical illusion of the sunset (and boats / stars / constellations) clearly to you, so that you understand it, however - when you don't understand something, you should ask questions!

Quote
Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms

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.

Quote
The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round

Many of the lights in the sky appear round.  Round is not the same as spherical, nor do the lights in the sky have anything to do with the earth.

Quote
If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact

Here we are back in the room full of smoke.  So let's try to grab at one of these, often implicit, claims - that the sun is a ball of gas or that the moon is a ball of rock or cheese or any other stupid thing man might fancy.  Do we have any good evidence to support these wild and ridiculous claims?  Of course not, we are merely told we do early and often.  The idea that the sun is a ball of gas was stupid when it was originally imagined (they thought the sun was like a gas light, because they were stupid) and it is twice as stupid now.  Astronomy is largely not science, nor was it in the past/its heyday.

Quote
Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else?

There is no strong evidence to support the presumed (since pythagoras) spherical nature nor composition/function of the moon or sun.  There is barely any evidence at all.  Obviously they are real, it is our mythology about them that is the fiction.

Quote
In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory?

Light is a pressure wave.  It travels with, and is comprised of, its media.  Under "normal" circumstances, barring refraction, the pressure wave radiates in wave patterns through that media in the same direction it did initially.  Only interaction with matter can alter lights path (though interference can occur as well and appear/manifest as path alteration, it most often does not) and this is experimentally validated fact with no contrary experiment, measurement, or demonstration.  I am not a proponent of EA, but I cannot discount it as a possibility entirely.

Quote
I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.

I do indeed.  I can only speak for myself, and it is this way with the vast majority of flat earth researchers.

Quote
If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?

Obviously water is matter and can be made to conform to any shape.  One of the hallmarks of fluids, especially water, is that it can support no shear stress.  As a result, at rest, the surface of water is only one shape - horizontal, flat, and level.  This is a readily demonstrable law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries.

Yes, surface tension / london dispersion / electrostatic forces are real.  They are also non-sequitur, like tides.

Tides occur.  They are in no way caused by the moon or any light in the sky.  Water can change shape, swell, shoal, move etc. for a variety of reasons. The fundamental cause of the tides is a mystery, as it always was.  More science is required!

Quote
You may say I'm a victim of education

We all are, brother or sister.  We are products of our society and raising wether we want to be, accept it, or not.  Our "education" is indoctrination/conditioning through rote under the guise of education.

Quote
but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend

And we're back to making aesthetic choices instead of scientific ones. It does not matter that it is more "imaginable", "reasonable", "easy to comprehend", or more "elegant"/"pretty" - that isn't how we make choices in science! Sadly there are many "scientists" that make this mistake (unrepentantly) and encourage others to do the same.

Quote
especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see. 

This is that room of smoke again. If we critically evaluate this statement (that we hear repeatedly from childhood), we find that this statement is clearly untrue.  All models are wrong, but limitedly useful for a time. The presumptive model is a paper mache project millennia old - it's (barely) held together with spit, polish, gum and twine.  It NEVER explains anything (models are not for explanation), and it is constantly and consistently wrong as it always is.  It does not predict most of the things we see, nor are its predictions accurate in most regards (beyond the limited ones the model was designed for and built from - with accepted margins of error of course!).

Quote
Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved

This is merely a mantra, required to be recited and repeated since childhood with no dissent.  Water's surface never curves at rest in the sustained convex curvature required by the globe model, nor has it ever been measured to (only the distinct lack of curvature is ever measured).  The world can never be spherical in empirical science until that measurement exists.  On the other hand, the statement is TECHNICALLy correct literally - land can be any shape and water too!

Quote
is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.

As I explained, it doesn't measure the curvature of water at rest - which is the whole requirement.  Every time water's surface at rest is measured it is level/horizontal and flat.  There are no contrary measurements, and there MUST be for the spherical posit to become a part of empirical science (for the first time).  It is also disingenuously and erroneously presented as an experiment, when it is a mere observation - but this is "par for the course" with people who don't understand science and were improperly educated.

Quote
Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained.

It is an interesting claim, one that I rarely defend (but is reasonably easy to do so - much more than you might expect).  I have yet to do the science myself however, but most all accelerants/fuels fail in vacuum (yes, even with adequate oxygen in the solid fuel).  It is possible that rockets do not really work without air to push against them.  In general I do not doubt the "equal opposite" law - but that doesn't mean rockets work.  Any high school (and some middle school and below) student can calculate (as von braun did, and everyone else involved), trivially, that chemical rockets are a farce in any case.

Quote
At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society

Exactly.  Dissent is not allowed, and severely punished.  We are required to take the spherical earth as a dogma of our faith beginning from a shamefully tender age.  There is no academic or scientific freedom of exploration for this subject and countless others.

Quote
Science accepted this long ago and moved on

Science is not a person, nor has it ever "accepted" anything.  Consensus is unwelcome in science, and essentially doesn't exist when it is practiced properly.  All you are expressing is the reality; no scientists work on this subject, nor are they allowed to if they wished to.  There is no funding, and endless ridicule/punishment for dissent. I highly recommend a bbc program called "heretic" to help you understand what is going on in "science".  Historically, no scientist has ever worked on the subject/problem - ever.

Quote
Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything.

There is ample evidence/science to support all of those claims, unlike the claim that the world is spherical - which is merely an unvalidated assumption more than 2 millennia old.  It was also taught to children for millennia as validated fact, erroneously and disingenuously, continuing to today.  In any case, this isn't about proof of the earth being flat, it is about there being no validation/proof of the assumption the world is spherical first concocted by stupid and lazy rich pedophile slavers in ancient greece.

Quote
Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here.

I haven't seen it much HERE (except on the RET side), but I have seen it a lot - and I agree that it is not good science - to say the least.  The competent researchers and those knowledgable about science do not (they try, anyhow) make this mistake.  Selective dismissing of evidence, without justification, is indefensible and the vast majority of competent flat earth researchers simply reinterpret evidence (more consistently with science, typically) NOT discard it.  All scientists, even, are guilty of bias (selective evidence being one component) despite their best efforts, however.

Quote
it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).

I disagree.  It isn't even a theory in a scientific context.  Most of flat earth research products (scientific and historical analyses, observations, experiments etc.) are not part of a generative "theory" as much as they are demonstrating flaw in the presumptive model mandated as truth without dissent from childhood through conditioning by rote under the guise of education.

Quote
but I'd also argue that there already has been.

As you are intended to (and informed as such)! However those of us that bother to rigorously and critically check (virtually no one, by design) find that the data is not there, and the data that is comes from the proven and demonstrably untrustworthy MIC.  Science must be validated, repeated and repeatable - and that "science" is anything but.

Quote
The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.

Once again we find that when we distill the room of smoke (of 2500 years of ironclad, irrefutable evidence!!!) , all that remains is what we saw on tv as "proof".  This is unacceptable to all researchers, scientists, and capable students (which, regrettably, there are very few of due chiefly to lack of competent teachers).

Welcome to flat earth research! Almost nothing is as it seems at first glance; it takes more disciplined study to pierce the veil.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 04:46:51 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #76 on: November 15, 2020, 04:58:24 PM »
I appreciate MarkAntony doesn't want to post any more on rockets in space, but the insistence rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push on is wrong. Simply put, the rocket is pushed by expelling its fuel out the back at extreme speed (speed generated by burning the stuff). Take the third stage of a Saturn V, which weighed around ten metric tonnes when empty and carried over a hundred metric tonnes of fuel, and operated only in space. Expel those hundred tonnes as a single mass backwards at 10ms-1 from a stationary rocket and reaction to the necessary force will push the now empty 10 tonne rocket forwards at 100ms-1 in accord with Newton's 3rd Law. Since the tonnes of fuel have left the rocket, the rocket continues on its way until another force acts on it. Of course the real rocket exhaust roars out of the engine at much higher speed, supersonic speed in fact (and not all the fuel at once.)

There is an earthbound comparison I find useful: swing your open hand through the air and feel how much resistance from the air you can detect, then try swinging your open hand through a bath of water at the same speed and feel how much more resistance to movement from the water you can feel. There's lots more resistance from the water, isn't there? Yet here's a conundrum: boats that use water jet propulsion don't direct that jet into the water, they direct it above the water into the air, which has much less resistance to push against. The difference in propulsion is dramatic, so here's a 1000hp+ gas turbine-powered jet boat doing its stuff on a Canadian river. (look at the enormous rooster tail from the water jet; these guys are nuts...)



Now if the water jet works much better pushing the water jet into air with much, much less resistance to push against than water, then the efficiency of a water jet has nothing to do with pushing against a resistance. Its efficiency is all to do with directing as much water backwards in as short a time as possible to drive the boat forwards at as high a speed as possible in accordance with Newton's Third Law. The boat above manages 100mph+ speeds. Rocket engines do the same, and are in fact more efficient in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 08:31:19 PM by Longtitube »
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #77 on: November 15, 2020, 09:07:42 PM »
I appreciate MarkAntony doesn't want to post any more on rockets in space, but the insistence rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push on is wrong. Simply put, the rocket is pushed by expelling its fuel out the back at extreme speed (speed generated by burning the stuff). Take the third stage of a Saturn V, which weighed around ten metric tonnes when empty and carried over a hundred metric tonnes of fuel, and operated only in space. Expel those hundred tonnes as a single mass backwards at 10ms-1 from a stationary rocket and reaction to the necessary force will push the now empty 10 tonne rocket forwards at 100ms-1 in accord with Newton's 3rd Law. Since the tonnes of fuel have left the rocket, the rocket continues on its way until another force acts on it. Of course the real rocket exhaust roars out of the engine at much higher speed, supersonic speed in fact (and not all the fuel at once.)

There is an earthbound comparison I find useful: swing your open hand through the air and feel how much resistance from the air you can detect, then try swinging your open hand through a bath of water at the same speed and feel how much more resistance to movement from the water you can feel. There's lots more resistance from the water, isn't there? Yet here's a conundrum: boats that use water jet propulsion don't direct that jet into the water, they direct it above the water into the air, which has much less resistance to push against. The difference in propulsion is dramatic, so here's a 1000hp+ gas turbine-powered jet boat doing its stuff on a Canadian river. (look at the enormous rooster tail from the water jet; these guys are nuts...)



Now if the water jet works much better pushing the water jet into air with much, much less resistance to push against than water, then the efficiency of a water jet has nothing to do with pushing against a resistance. Its efficiency is all to do with directing as much water backwards in as short a time as possible to drive the boat forwards at as high a speed as possible in accordance with Newton's Third Law. The boat above manages 100mph+ speeds. Rocket engines do the same, and are in fact more efficient in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.

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. This is exactly why I didn't want to discuss it as all the useful and interesting information gets buried in a meaningless debate over whether rockets work in space. On a side note, I've been banned from two separate conspiracy themed forums because of this debate without breaking any of the forum rules, so I really have no interest in risking another ban by debating it further.

But for the sake of lurkers or anyone who might be dissuaded towards flat earth by the attempts to discredit my claim relating to rockets breaking Newton's first law, I will argue it this one time. The examples above (the can and rocket in the vacuum) do not hold any water (so to speak) as the so called "vacuum" they apply is immediately compromised as soon as the can bursts and the rocket fires. The chamber is filled with gasses instantly. These are bad experiments and people should read into them with high caution.

Your analogy with the boat is incomparable as there is no vacuum present and, unlike the rockets in space, it conforms to all of Newtons laws of motion. Your example with the rocket at the start is exactly what you think should happen but definitely not in theory or practice

Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 10:53:49 PM by Mark Antony »
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #78 on: November 15, 2020, 10:12:21 PM »
Your analogy with the boat is incomparable as there is no vacuum present and, unlike the rockets in space, it conforms to all of Newtons laws of motion. Your example with the rocket at the start is exactly what you think should happen but definitely not in theory or practice

Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this, your definition of a system seems wrong: once the ball has been thrown, unless it is somehow tethered to the astronaut, it is no longer part of a system with him. Thank you for responding nevertheless.

If anyone else is interested in this kind of problem, this might help illustrate it, including discussion of whether the ball remains part of the system or not:-

Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #79 on: November 15, 2020, 10:45:27 PM »
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.

With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.

Here’s a similar thought experiment.  You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary.  If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s.  This cannot be the case though.  The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you.  The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown.  Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.

It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth.  If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy.  However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball.  This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against.  It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards.  Has nothing to do with pushing against air.

I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are.  Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy?  Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"