Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

Well you’ve just explained it yourself
Can you explain why the theory of gravity does not work?

If scientists/engineers etc are using gravity in their equations and are constantly being innovative why is that?

if Gravity was bullshit surely nothing would work?

why why why

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Absolutely. I'm fishing for answers and getting none.
Why?
It's simple.
Nobody knows the answer and for good reason. Gravity is made up to cover from the reality which is atmospheric pressure upon dense mass.

The thing is, if that was used as reality then space could not exist and rockets could not go to space and men can't land on a moon in space...and so on and so on and so on.
Gravity keeps all this stuff real in the minds of people who are sold the story.
It had me for long enough so I well understand why people would go with that flow.

What's not to like?
Rockets in a space vacuum just flying to the moon and spacemen jumping about on a cement like surface as we're shown.
It doesn't matter how crummy the footage was or how willy some of it looks. It gets people. People like to think of amazing magical stuff like that and I mean that in the best way possible, not as a dig.

I watch films like deep impact and armageddon where they go into space and land on asteroids. It's fantastic to watch and I can actually do that. Why?
Because it's a film.
I can watch people float about in a space station. Why? Because it's a sort of documentary of bad acting not in the same category of the film, gravity which shows a bit more action instead of people like Chris Hadfield taking the absolute pee out of people, pretending he's talking to nippers.

You must be logged on to see media items

I was absolutely crying with laughing at this.
Billions and billions for all this space stuff and they spend most of their time showing bubbles or acting like zorro or singing and playing guitars and throwing food and water about.

Micro gravity in the space station we hear.
Why?
16 times a day the space station whizzes around the big ball we're told.
How doesn't it fall?
It does but it's going so fast as gravity pulls it down it manages to actually fall around the ball. Can you imagine that?

Why does it work? Magic, that's what. A whole lot of magic.

?

You were the one that said relative motion.

Well you’ve just explained it yourself
Can you explain why the theory of gravity does not work?

If scientists/engineers etc are using gravity in their equations and are constantly being innovative why is that?

if Gravity was bullshit surely nothing would work?

Any idea how engineers calculate gravity in their engineering tasks?

why why why

You must be logged on to see media items

I have to admit this video did make me laugh.

 

[What A Waster]

Absolutely. I'm fishing for answers and getting none.
Why?
It's simple.
Nobody knows the answer and for good reason. Gravity is made up to cover from the reality which is atmospheric pressure upon dense mass.

The thing is, if that was used as reality then space could not exist and rockets could not go to space and men can't land on a moon in space...and so on and so on and so on.
Gravity keeps all this stuff real in the minds of people who are sold the story.
It had me for long enough so I well understand why people would go with that flow.

What's not to like?
Rockets in a space vacuum just flying to the moon and spacemen jumping about on a cement like surface as we're shown.
It doesn't matter how crummy the footage was or how willy some of it looks. It gets people. People like to think of amazing magical stuff like that and I mean that in the best way possible, not as a dig.

I watch films like deep impact and armageddon where they go into space and land on asteroids. It's fantastic to watch and I can actually do that. Why?
Because it's a film.
I can watch people float about in a space station. Why? Because it's a sort of documentary of bad acting not in the same category of the film, gravity which shows a bit more action instead of people like Chris Hadfield taking the absolute pee out of people, pretending he's talking to nippers.

You must be logged on to see media items

I was absolutely crying with laughing at this.
Billions and billions for all this space stuff and they spend most of their time showing bubbles or acting like zorro or singing and playing guitars and throwing food and water about.

Micro gravity in the space station we hear.
Why?
16 times a day the space station whizzes around the big ball we're told.
How doesn't it fall?
It does but it's going so fast as gravity pulls it down it manages to actually fall around the ball. Can you imagine that?

Why does it work? Magic, that's what. A whole lot of magic.

You were the one that said relative motion.

Any idea how engineers calculate gravity in their engineering tasks?

I have to admit this video did make me laugh.

Need better bait.

 

[DPTT]

Absolutely. I'm fishing for answers and getting none.
Why?
It's simple.
Nobody knows the answer and for good reason. Gravity is made up to cover from the reality which is atmospheric pressure upon dense mass.

The thing is, if that was used as reality then space could not exist and rockets could not go to space and men can't land on a moon in space...and so on and so on and so on.
Gravity keeps all this stuff real in the minds of people who are sold the story.
It had me for long enough so I well understand why people would go with that flow.

What's not to like?
Rockets in a space vacuum just flying to the moon and spacemen jumping about on a cement like surface as we're shown.
It doesn't matter how crummy the footage was or how willy some of it looks. It gets people. People like to think of amazing magical stuff like that and I mean that in the best way possible, not as a dig.

I watch films like deep impact and armageddon where they go into space and land on asteroids. It's fantastic to watch and I can actually do that. Why?
Because it's a film.
I can watch people float about in a space station. Why? Because it's a sort of documentary of bad acting not in the same category of the film, gravity which shows a bit more action instead of people like Chris Hadfield taking the absolute pee out of people, pretending he's talking to nippers.

You must be logged on to see media items

I was absolutely crying with laughing at this.
Billions and billions for all this space stuff and they spend most of their time showing bubbles or acting like zorro or singing and playing guitars and throwing food and water about.

Micro gravity in the space station we hear.
Why?
16 times a day the space station whizzes around the big ball we're told.
How doesn't it fall?
It does but it's going so fast as gravity pulls it down it manages to actually fall around the ball. Can you imagine that?

Why does it work? Magic, that's what. A whole lot of magic.

You were the one that said relative motion.

Any idea how engineers calculate gravity in their engineering tasks?

I have to admit this video did make me laugh.

So you are right all along
Show one (not ya bath please) bit of evidence that we live in a dome (cell), the sun (energy source) is in the centre of this earth we live on, the edge of the earth where the dome meets, where England is on your earth?

Just one, from someone who has observed and collated data for any of this to be true?

thanks

 

[fyl2u]

The word science is the Earth and everything about it.
The word, scientist is any person trying to understand it in any way shape or form.
It makes every person a scientist.

Welcome back.

Science is the search for understanding of the laws of the universe and everything in it. Before the advent of the "scientific method" it was known as Natural Philosophy and was much closer to your definition than science is.

So, while everyone who wishes to understand the universe may well be a "philosopher of nature", it is a special subset of those people who are truly "scientists".

To be a true scientist, one needs to not only speculate on explanations, but to devise experiments that can determine with absolute honesty whether your explanation works better than the established explanation.

The scientific method gave us an honest framework that can be used to devise experiments of any kind to produce honest results from honest questions.

So, if the question is "Is the water in my bathtub actually flat or does it curve by the amount it should if the Earth were a globe?" and we want an honest answer, then we must first use maths to figure out how much curve it should have if the world were a sphere, and then find a measuring device capable of measuring flatness to the accuracy that would be necessary to honestly say "there's no curve to the degree that would be expected with a globe earth".

The point of doing the experiment this way is that it doesn't matter whether the person conducting the experiment is trying to prove that the water in the bath is flat or whether they are trying to prove it is curved, the result would be an honest one, arrived at in good faith because honest parameters had been set from the start and an honest method had been used to determine that result.

And that depends on the theories and the reality of the outcome of those tests.

Not at all. The role of a scientist isn't to prove his hypothesis is correct, it is to determine whether or not it is correct, where a negative result is still a desirable result because even by showing for certain that a hypothesis is incorrect, you get closer to understanding how the universe works.

This is what's being argued and you telling me it's all above board is you telling me you accept and/or believe everything told and sold to you, as factual, without actually knowing for sure if it is what you argue for.

It's not what is being argued at all. Nobody is telling you to stop questioning the established findings of science. They're saying that if you believe that a particular established finding is incorrect in some specific way, then you need to come up with an experiment that in good faith will determine whether the established finding is correct or whether your postulated alternative is correct.

Simply saying "I don't believe it, I believe this other thing to be true instead" without providing any experimental proof isn't enough to be considered a "scientific" retort.

There's a lot I don't understand. Gobbledygook is difficult to understand with this space bull and what not. The thing is, you don't understand it but you think you do because you accept it from books and such without actually knowing what's what.

You're partially correct. There are indeed many aspects of space and time that I don't understand, some aspects that I can sort of get my head around, and other aspects that seem so obvious to me that I don't question them at all under normal circumstances (and this has been the appeal of this thread for me - giving me the opportunity to explore some of the things I have taken for granted and to come up with experiments that would either prove or disprove them).

Life is much more simple than people believe. The issue is in the stories sold and told are done in a way that literally sells complicated without explaining why.

That's not true. There's always an explanation for the complicated parts. Go back a few thousand years and the explanations were more simplistic. As time passed, our pool of knowledge has grown and our ability to hone those original explanations with more sophisticated experimentation has produced more complicated answers, but if you learn what the previous explanation had been and what the experiments were hoping to achieve then you should begin to understand why a more complicated answer was necessary.

Take Newtonian physics. For years it was the best explanation we had to explain the way motion worked. We didn't need a more complicated explanation because almost everything around us seemed to conform to the predictions it gave us.

As time passed, we developed more powerful telescopes, more powerful microscopes, more sophisticated apparatus for looking at the very large and the very small, and gradually it became obvious that those original predictions didn't always hold true anymore. We needed a new model that would work for everything, not just the things in the "middle world" we can observe with our own senses.

And so arrived relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and while we are still yet to find a "theory of everything" that explains everything in a simple way, all of these fields have produced results that each explain part of the picture in a more accurate manner than the established theories that came before them.

Science isn't trying to be complicated. Quite the opposite in fact. Science wants to find the most simple honest explanation for everything.

Unfortunately "the most simple honest explanation" is often complicated if you don't have the knowledge and understanding of the steps that came before the more complicated one.

When you break it all down it becomes much more clear.

That much is actually true.

A wave is simply that.

Simply what?

Water itself will show you what a wave is in a simpler form.

Water can be used to exhibit various aspects of wave mechanics, yes.

It's all about looking deeper into the simplicity if you can push aside the gobbledygook.

Indeed.

Lot's of things I don't understand that aren't nonsense. What we're arguing isn't part of it.

I have my own evidence and is the reason why I go with what I go with.

If you have your own evidence, why are you withholding it from this thread, while everybody else has been backing up their positions with experimental evidence?

My opinion is valid. Not as a fact but as a retaliation to other opinions that are not backed up as factual but are equally as valid as an opinion. This is called debating and debating can only work if people are not in control of the facts.

An opinion is only valid if it is backed up by evidence. Otherwise it is just hearsay and inadmissible in an honest debate.

You correctly say that "debating can only work if people are not in control of the facts" and yet you have repeatedly withheld the facts behind your "own experiments" that you say prove that "space stuff is nonsense" and that the Earth can't possibly be a globe.

At the same time you have repeatedly dismissed any experimental evidence from others that back up their positions against yours.

So, if you were to answer in all honesty, which side of this debate is actually trying to "control the facts"?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So you are right all along
Show one (not ya bath please) bit of evidence that we live in a dome (cell), the sun (energy source) is in the centre of this earth we live on, the edge of the earth where the dome meets, where England is on your earth?

Just one, from someone who has observed and collated data for any of this to be true?

thanks

It doesn't matter what my Earth mindset is. Treat it as nothing more than my own thoughts. I offer nothing as factual with my Earth.
The thing is, if your Earth is what you say then you should be able to offer me proof.

 

[DPTT]

It doesn't matter what my Earth mindset is. Treat it as nothing more than my own thoughts. I offer nothing as factual with my Earth.
The thing is, if your Earth is what you say then you should be able to offer me proof.

An awful lot of people have tried mate and you refute everything
If it was all bulshit I doubt we would be capable of having this conversation via the interweb

 

[fyl2u]

What is intelligence?
Is it the ability to memorise and regurgitate what is memorised onto a piece of paper for the reward pf marks or a star or a grade?
When does intelligence start and end in that regard?
Is it an A* for super intelligence and a F for none whatsoever?

Or does intelligence stretch much farther than that?

You tell me.

In the context of this thread, intelligence is the ability to understand another person's position fully and then devise an honest method of determining whether or not they are correct in that position.

 

[What A Waster]

Welcome back.

Science is the search for understanding of the laws of the universe and everything in it. Before the advent of the "scientific method" it was known as Natural Philosophy and was much closer to your definition than science is.

So, while everyone who wishes to understand the universe may well be a "philosopher of nature", it is a special subset of those people who are truly "scientists".

To be a true scientist, one needs to not only speculate on explanations, but to devise experiments that can determine with absolute honesty whether your explanation works better than the established explanation.

The scientific method gave us an honest framework that can be used to devise experiments of any kind to produce honest results from honest questions.

So, if the question is "Is the water in my bathtub actually flat or does it curve by the amount it should if the Earth were a globe?" and we want an honest answer, then we must first use maths to figure out how much curve it should have if the world were a sphere, and then find a measuring device capable of measuring flatness to the accuracy that would be necessary to honestly say "there's no curve to the degree that would be expected with a globe earth".

The point of doing the experiment this way is that it doesn't matter whether the person conducting the experiment is trying to prove that the water in the bath is flat or whether they are trying to prove it is curved, the result would be an honest one, arrived at in good faith because honest parameters had been set from the start and an honest method had been used to determine that result.




Not at all. The role of a scientist isn't to prove his hypothesis is correct, it is to determine whether or not it is correct, where a negative result is still a desirable result because even by showing for certain that a hypothesis is incorrect, you get closer to understanding how the universe works.



It's not what is being argued at all. Nobody is telling you to stop questioning the established findings of science. They're saying that if you believe that a particular established finding is incorrect in some specific way, then you need to come up with an experiment that in good faith will determine whether the established finding is correct or whether your postulated alternative is correct.

Simply saying "I don't believe it, I believe this other thing to be true instead" without providing any experimental proof isn't enough to be considered a "scientific" retort.



You're partially correct. There are indeed many aspects of space and time that I don't understand, some aspects that I can sort of get my head around, and other aspects that seem so obvious to me that I don't question them at all under normal circumstances (and this has been the appeal of this thread for me - giving me the opportunity to explore some of the things I have taken for granted and to come up with experiments that would either prove or disprove them).




That's not true. There's always an explanation for the complicated parts. Go back a few thousand years and the explanations were more simplistic. As time passed, our pool of knowledge has grown and our ability to hone those original explanations with more sophisticated experimentation has produced more complicated answers, but if you learn what the previous explanation had been and what the experiments were hoping to achieve then you should begin to understand why a more complicated answer was necessary.

Take Newtonian physics. For years it was the best explanation we had to explain the way motion worked. We didn't need a more complicated explanation because almost everything around us seemed to conform to the predictions it gave us.

As time passed, we developed more powerful telescopes, more powerful microscopes, more sophisticated apparatus for looking at the very large and the very small, and gradually it became obvious that those original predictions didn't always hold true anymore. We needed a new model that would work for everything, not just the things in the "middle world" we can observe with our own senses.

And so arrived relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and while we are still yet to find a "theory of everything" that explains everything in a simple way, all of these fields have produced results that each explain part of the picture in a more accurate manner than the established theories that came before them.

Science isn't trying to be complicated. Quite the opposite in fact. Science wants to find the most simple honest explanation for everything.

Unfortunately "the most simple honest explanation" is often complicated if you don't have the knowledge and understanding of the steps that came before the more complicated one.



That much is actually true.



Simply what?



Water can be used to exhibit various aspects of wave mechanics, yes.



Indeed.



If you have your own evidence, why are you withholding it from this thread, while everybody else has been backing up their positions with experimental evidence?



An opinion is only valid if it is backed up by evidence. Otherwise it is just hearsay and inadmissible in an honest debate.

You correctly say that "debating can only work if people are not in control of the facts" and yet you have repeatedly withheld the facts behind your "own experiments" that you say prove that "space stuff is nonsense" and that the Earth can't possibly be a globe.

At the same time you have repeatedly dismissed any experimental evidence from others that back up their positions against yours.

So, if you were to answer in all honesty, which side of this debate is actually trying to "control the facts"?

Good post that. Very well put.

 

[payne]

Good post that. Very well put.

which he'll dismiss immediately. show me prooooofff

 

[babyimreadytoblow]

I have been responded to but nobody can seem to answer the question.


You mean the same Brian Cox who went flying in a fighter jet to catch up with the so called spin of the Earth to stop the sun supposedly setting?

Catching up to Earth's so called spin when we're told everything is being dragged by the atmosphere with the Earth's so called spin.

Any idea how that works?

Or do you think the jet actually caught up with the speed of the movement of the sun reflection moving over the dome?
What seems more likely?

Any idea how it works?

Well the jet has thrust. It is being propelled through the air. So it is not being dragged by the atmosphere with the earth's so called spin.

I mean they could be fake, but I've seen several videos of this. And I can't see why the people doing the videoing would lie, they'd make a fortune exposing 'the truth'.

 

[DaveH]

Can you say what's right about the so called experiments?

Of course but no more than the so called mainstream scientists. Don;t get them mixed up with real scientists that actually come up with real solutions to everyday life and actually show proof.


I actually thought it was massively logical to understand that everything needs a medium or it cannot exist.
Obviously the space stuff and the magical stuff we're schooled into is another matter, pardon the pun.

What I have too back it up is my concern. It's simple and I tried to explain the simplicity of one thing but people went into a frenzy so I won't waste another second on it.

If you have a good thinking mind and feel you can understand it then let's get back to centrifugal force or centripetal force. Does it require a medium in order to work?

Now bear in mind we are getting right back to the swing ball analogy but the crux is, does it require a medium to work in.
After all this is the supposed orbit explanation.

I'll make it easier.

If you are on a fairground rota or meteor...I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. How does it make you stay stuck to the inside of the outer rim?

Yes, first it appears to work and shows the interference pattern that the experiment expected if there was no flow of a ‘medium’ for light to travel through. But the key think is 150 years of the experiment being repeated by hundreds (possibly thousands) of other scientists around the world, in many cases trying to compete against each other, wanting to be the one to stand out, find something new and different and set themselves apart. But nobody has detected any evidence that em waves need a medium to travel through.

The experiment has been expanded on, changed, different wavelengths used etc, all come to the same conclusion.

So when you weigh up evidence you have a huge amount of people independently verifying the work, all coming to the same conclusions with data and experimental evidence to back it up. This is spread over many countries, many decades, many different environments, many different political agendas, many different scientific institutes and the experiment done in many different ways. That is pretty strong evidence and you have to ask how could they all be wrong or why would they all lie?

You also have to add to that, the fact that space is real and we have sent many objects out into space with radio signals coming back. We have em waves travelling through the near vacuum of space that we have created, along with the light, radio, microwave, gamma etc all from distant stars and galaxies. If it is a lie, it has just extended far beyond those who repeated the experiment I mentioned.

It doesn’t prove 100%, but it is fair to say it is in the 99%+ bracket.

Against you have you standing alone with no education, no scientific background, no experiments, no data, nothing more than sitting one day and musing that em waves must require a medium. Pure thought, alone, independent and also contradicting everything known about science.

It doesn’t look good in your favour, which is why I think it is on you to prove there is a medium required for EM waves to travel through. So far you have ignored and deflected (as per usual) any questions for you to actually offer any basis on why you are right and say we are all completely wrong.

Can you offer anything more than just a ‘musing’, to tip the scales in your direction?

 

[payne]

Yes, first it appears to work and shows the interference pattern that the experiment expected if there was no flow of a ‘medium’ for light to travel through. But the key think is 150 years of the experiment being repeated by hundreds (possibly thousands) of other scientists around the world, in many cases trying to compete against each other, wanting to be the one to stand out, find something new and different and set themselves apart. But nobody has detected any evidence that em waves need a medium to travel through.

The experiment has been expanded on, changed, different wavelengths used etc, all come to the same conclusion.

So when you weigh up evidence you have a huge amount of people independently verifying the work, all coming to the same conclusions with data and experimental evidence to back it up. This is spread over many countries, many decades, many different environments, many different political agendas, many different scientific institutes and the experiment done in many different ways. That is pretty strong evidence and you have to ask how could they all be wrong or why would they all lie?

You also have to add to that, the fact that space is real and we have sent many objects out into space with radio signals coming back. We have em waves travelling through the near vacuum of space that we have created, along with the light, radio, microwave, gamma etc all from distant stars and galaxies. If it is a lie, it has just extended far beyond those who repeated the experiment I mentioned.

It doesn’t prove 100%, but it is fair to say it is in the 99%+ bracket.

Against you have you standing alone with no education, no scientific background, no experiments, no data, nothing more than sitting one day and musing that em waves must require a medium. Pure thought, alone, independent and also contradicting everything known about science.

It doesn’t look good in your favour, which is why I think it is on you to prove there is a medium required for EM waves to travel through. So far you have ignored and deflected (as per usual) any questions for you to actually offer any basis on why you are right and say we are all completely wrong.

Can you offer anything more than just a ‘musing’, to tip the scales in your direction?

This perfectly sums up what a non scientist but rational thinker should use as part of his/her toolkit when accepting the very nature of reality. The consensus of competing parties is a very compelling medium.

 

[legend7]

So you are right all along
Show one (not ya bath please) bit of evidence that we live in a dome (cell), the sun (energy source) is in the centre of this earth we live on, the edge of the earth where the dome meets, where England is on your earth?

Just one, from someone who has observed and collated data for any of this to be true?

thanks

He put a map of his world up which was the shape of a lemon squeezer, raised in the middle, somehow the oceans were on a slope from the raised part to the lowest bit

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Nukehasslefan said:
The word science is the Earth and everything about it.
The word, scientist is any person trying to understand it in any way shape or form.
It makes every person a scientist.

fyl2u said:​

Welcome back.

Science is the search for understanding of the laws of the universe and everything in it. Before the advent of the "scientific method" it was known as Natural Philosophy and was much closer to your definition than science is.

So, while everyone who wishes to understand the universe may well be a "philosopher of nature", it is a special subset of those people who are truly "scientists".

To be a true scientist, one needs to not only speculate on explanations, but to devise experiments that can determine with absolute honesty whether your explanation works better than the established explanation.

The scientific method gave us an honest framework that can be used to devise experiments of any kind to produce honest results from honest questions.

Nukehasslefan said:​

I have no issue with honesty and the scientific looking for the truth.

It's the stuff that's not honest or potentially questionable in which I'm arguing.

fyl2u said:​

So, if the question is "Is the water in my bathtub actually flat or does it curve by the amount it should if the Earth were a globe?" and we want an honest answer, then we must first use maths to figure out how much curve it should have if the world were a sphere, and then find a measuring device capable of measuring flatness to the accuracy that would be necessary to honestly say "there's no curve to the degree that would be expected with a globe earth".
The point of doing the experiment this way is that it doesn't matter whether the person conducting the experiment is trying to prove that the water in the bath is flat or whether they are trying to prove it is curved, the result would be an honest one, arrived at in good faith because honest parameters had been set from the start and an honest method had been used to determine that result.
Nukehasslefan said:
That's fine but I'd argue good faith tells anyone the water is flat without the need to argue figures.

If you can determine end to end level over any distance that is genuinely measurable and it reads a marker of flatness end to end then you can easily accept flat and level.

If someone tell me, no no, no it just looks flat and level but it really curves into a whole ball, then I'm going to rightly dismiss it.

Nukehasslefan said:
And that depends on the theories and the reality of the outcome of those tests.

fyl2u said:​

Not at all. The role of a scientist isn't to prove his hypothesis is correct, it is to determine whether or not it is correct, where a negative result is still a desirable result because even by showing for certain that a hypothesis is incorrect, you get closer to understanding how the universe works.
Nukehasslefan said:
Getting closer to understanding is all well and good if you are headed that way.
The thing is, closer to understanding of a hypothesis may be going in the opposite direction.
It's like saying I'm getting closer to winning the lottery because I got 2 numbers last month and 3 this month.

Nukehasslefan said:
This is what's being argued and you telling me it's all above board is you telling me you accept and/or believe everything told and sold to you, as factual, without actually knowing for sure if it is what you argue for.

fyl2u said:​

It's not what is being argued at all. Nobody is telling you to stop questioning the established findings of science. They're saying that if you believe that a particular established finding is incorrect in some specific way, then you need to come up with an experiment that in good faith will determine whether the established finding is correct or whether your postulated alternative is correct.
Nukehasslefan said:
That all depends if I'm passing an alternative off as factual, which I'm not. I'm giving my thoughts out.

fyl2u said:​

Simply saying "I don't believe it, I believe this other thing to be true instead" without providing any experimental proof isn't enough to be considered a "scientific" retort.
Nukehasslefan said:
To be fair I'm not simply saying I don't believe this and that for no reason. I don't expect you or anyone to accept or understand why I say what I say. I'm a nut as far as many are concerned so it's not surprising what I say is going to be immediately classed as delusions and all the rest of it.

I can't provide any proof of anything if people do not want to see anything as proof against the set narrative....and....I don't blame them. Why would or should anyone take anything I say as being pertinent ot anything against the grain?

However, equally I'm offered no proof to the contrary and the evidence I'm offered is massively circumstantial.

Nukehasslefan said:
There's a lot I don't understand. Gobbledygook is difficult to understand with this space bull and what not. The thing is, you don't understand it but you think you do because you accept it from books and such without actually knowing what's what.

fyl2u said:​

You're partially correct. There are indeed many aspects of space and time that I don't understand, some aspects that I can sort of get my head around, and other aspects that seem so obvious to me that I don't question them at all under normal circumstances (and this has been the appeal of this thread for me - giving me the opportunity to explore some of the things I have taken for granted and to come up with experiments that would either prove or disprove them).
Nukehasslefan said:
If you're absolutely honest with yourself there's nothing about it you understand in terms of what you're told is reality.
You can sit back and say 2 ahhh I see, that's why this happens" but not really know the truth of it.
I'm trying to give my honest opinion and ask the same.

Nukehasslefan said:
Life is much more simple than people believe. The issue is in the stories sold and told are done in a way that literally sells complicated without explaining why.

fyl2u said:​

That's not true. There's always an explanation for the complicated parts. Go back a few thousand years and the explanations were more simplistic. As time passed, our pool of knowledge has grown and our ability to hone those original explanations with more sophisticated experimentation has produced more complicated answers, but if you learn what the previous explanation had been and what the experiments were hoping to achieve then you should begin to understand why a more complicated answer was necessary.
Nukehasslefan said:
Gaining knowledge is fine and building up knowledge of something to become what's known as, expert, can take time and some people take much less time than others.
However, things are made more complicated because those that gain that knowledge are basically out in front of the up and coming learners who see as complicated, something which is now classed as run of the mill to the seasoned expert.

The reality is to look at the start. Go to the lowest point. Reverse engineer the complicated and look at the initial speck that started it all off.
Basically look at each piece of the jigsaw.

 

[Nobby]

The start of your jigsaw is that you do not accept the earth is a globe. It doesn't matter at this point what shape you believe it to be.

So for your hypothesis to move beyond believing that the earth is not a globe you need to be able to demonstrate in a measurable and repeatable way that is the case.

If you can't do that the rest of your musings are irrelevant as you can't get past your first piece of the jigsaw

Once you have demonstrated the earth is not a globe, you do the same looking at the other issues, eg what shape is it, how do night and day work etc.

So starting with your first price of the jigsaw. What is your repeatable and measurable evidence to demonstrate the earth is not a globe?

 

[babyimreadytoblow]

I would also like clarification from @Nukehasslefan what his repeatable and measurable evidence is to back up his theory the earth is not a globe.

If he would be kind enough to do so.

 

[DaveH]

This perfectly sums up what a non scientist but rational thinker should use as part of his/her toolkit when accepting the very nature of reality. The consensus of competing parties is a very compelling medium.

What I described is a technique known to many areas of study (and every day life). I first encountered it at GCSE when talking about assessing historical evidence. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? Were they there at the time? How were they connected (i.e. trying to please the new King who had just granted them huge tracts of land) and the important one, who else agreed.

Basically if lots of people agree who are independent or even better, conflicting with each other then it is most likely true. Apply the same rational to politics, reading the papers etc, it all applies.

With the whole shape of the earth thing, it comes down to a few basic questions, why would hundreds of thousands of people from every country of the world club together to lie? Why would they make that lie more and more elaborate every year? The answers seem to be no reason and it is now so complex it becomes unfeasible.

 

[payne]

What I described is a technique known to many areas of study (and every day life). I first encountered it at GCSE when talking about assessing historical evidence. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? Were they there at the time? How were they connected (i.e. trying to please the new King who had just granted them huge tracts of land) and the important one, who else agreed.

Basically if lots of people agree who are independent or even better, conflicting with each other then it is most likely true. Apply the same rational to politics, reading the papers etc, it all applies.

With the whole shape of the earth thing, it comes down to a few basic questions, why would hundreds of thousands of people from every country of the world club together to lie? Why would they make that lie more and more elaborate every year? The answers seem to be no reason and it is now so complex it becomes unfeasible.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[What A Waster]

What I described is a technique known to many areas of study (and every day life). I first encountered it at GCSE when talking about assessing historical evidence. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? Were they there at the time? How were they connected (i.e. trying to please the new King who had just granted them huge tracts of land) and the important one, who else agreed.

Basically if lots of people agree who are independent or even better, conflicting with each other then it is most likely true. Apply the same rational to politics, reading the papers etc, it all applies.

With the whole shape of the earth thing, it comes down to a few basic questions, why would hundreds of thousands of people from every country of the world club together to lie? Why would they make that lie more and more elaborate every year? The answers seem to be no reason and it is now so complex it becomes unfeasible.

Just look at the water in your bath.