They do not disprove anything. Documentation of their observations do not equate to actuality.
Of course they prove something. Either the observations are false, or the conjecture that the Earth is flat is false. You can, and others have, repeated these experiments and found them, within a certain acceptable margin of error, to be correct. They certainly roundly destroy FET claims.
"Approximately 29 nations, all signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, send personnel to perform seasonal (summer) and year-round research on the continent and in its surrounding oceans; the population of persons doing and supporting scientific research on the continent and its nearby islands south of 60 degrees south latitude (the region covered by the Antarctic Treaty) varies from approximately 4,000 in summer to 1,000 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research are present in the waters of the treaty region."
They are confined to specific regions in accordance with nation's territorial claims. I would venture that most of the routes involve straight lines (or geodesics if the Earth is indeed a sphere) and their instruments bring them to areas more commonly known as Antarctica.
The treaty was also signed one year after the formation of NASA.
And we still have yet to address the thousands of private individuals who travel each year to the Antarctic, and those who did so long before the formation of NASA, including those who reached the South Pole.
We know what is claimed.
And if we trusted no third party testimony and no direct observation of our senses, we wouldn't know shit about shit, and we'd sit around twiddling our thumbs and waiting patiently for death. Your attempts to defeat any advancement of human knowledge because there is an absurdly small chance that people could be lying en masse for no good reason or everything we see could be a hallucination is, to say the least, bizarre. Familiarize yourself with Ockham's razor.
"Bad ideas" is a matter of subjectivity, not objectivity or facts. The same is apparent with values. They are relative and subjective.
Wrong. Lots of bad ideas can be tested and proven wrong.
The FET is very easy to discount, I agree.
Are you even trying to be consistent? How do you reconcile this with your last statement?
I agree, some portion would need to be distorted.
If I ask which parts would have such easily measurable distortions, are you going to make more mystical appeals to unknowable forces?
Um, "a redshift can occur when a light source moves away from an observer" - Why would you assume that the other celestial objects are moving slower than we are and not faster?
If they are accelerating at the same rate as us, there would be no red shift.
If they are accelerating at a slower rate than us, we would have caught them long ago.
If they are accelerating at a faster rate than us, they would be so far away that light from those stars would have no chance of reaching us within the lifespan of the Earth.
There's a lot of problems caused by constant acceleration.
No. My implication was that they wouldn't be stupid enough to send intelligent soldiers to the Ice Wall.
And yet they need to in order to insure that the very expensive technology is managed properly and the job done correctly. What a wonderfully delicious catch-22.
You made no such implication, you merely stated that the soldiers there would naturally be idiots. The simplest conclusion is that you think this is the default. But this goes back to that Ockham's Razor thing you're unfamiliar with.
As I said, I cannot speculate on the technology used that would greatly diminish the number of required personnel.
When you appeal to things you claim you cannot know, it's called "mysticism", and it doesn't really form any kind of an argument. It may be that there are mystical forces at work we can't understand, but without an ability to understand them or impact them, their existence is irrelevant, functionally, and can be discounted.
And the 1960s is not pulled out of my ass. NASA was formed in 1958. The discovery of their Earth's spherical nature or lack thereof would be probably be in the few years preceding or succeeding that formation.
Wrong. We have numerous proofs of the shape of the Earth that long precede this. They have been laboriously explained to you.
Reverse what? I said - "I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart."
Which they would
be unable to do when the distances between locations are more than twice as wide. They can't magically make battleships travel at twice their normal cruising speed and not have anyone notice.
I suggest that they have several technological triggers in place, although what they are and how effective they would be is something I cannot speculate on.
This is functionally no different than your attributing it to magic, so I can dismiss your argument as a bad one.
It seems hospitable enough for the scientists that inhabit it year-round.
You might want to check again.
I just found it interesting that you'd compare $100M to $12B and suggest that it wouldn't be enough motivation.
Speaking of reading comprehension being key, check that number again. Not 400 million, chief, 400
billion. That's how much real military operations on the scale you're suggesting cost.
Show Posts
