Hubble data

For many years now, the Hubble Space Telescope has been transmitting about 120gb of science data per week (see "Data Stats") to Earth where it is stored on disk drives, openly available for anyone to download.  The archives currently contain around 25,000gb of images and other data, about which all of these papers keep getting written.  There should be little doubt that, regardless of its legitimacy or authenticity, there are a great deal of data about which thousands of scientists the world over are writing.  So, even if, hypothetically, we can't be sure that Hubble is a real thing that is really in space and really collecting data, and even if we can't be sure that the data are genuine, we can at least feel confident that the data at least exist since we feel confident that people are indeed studying and writing about the data.

And, Hubble is just one of many probes to collect data on our solar system, all of which have collected enormous amounts of data and produced thousands of papers.  All of this data, including the papers, are openly available to anyone who wants to download them and review the work.

Again, at this point I want to reiterate that I am not yet saying anything about whether the data are real/fake/whatever, just that somewhere there exist some data that is being distributed to people who are studying the data and writing things about it.  The fact that so many people are writing so many things is good reason to believe that the data exist.  These papers can be easily found and read by anyone, either for free through http://arxiv.org/, or through academic journals that can be obtained by anyone with a library card.

My argument (question?) is this: how could all of that data be illegitimate?  How could all of it be constructed artificially?  And, if it was constructed artificially, how is it that none of the thousands of trained observers have ever once caught on to any discrepancies?  How is it that so much novel information has been produced?  The amount of data is question is so vast that it could never be carefully and thoughtfully constructed by hand.  However, if the data is generated "en masse," it seems too likely that noticeable errors and discrepancies would be present, and it seems too unlikely that none of the thousands of people studying the data have ever noticed.  The fact that this data is so nuanced and full of novel information seems to only further indicate how difficult it would be to produce artificially and still be convincing.

Remember, Hubble alone has produced 25,000gb of images and other data.  Our combined exploration of our solar system has produced perhaps millions of gigabytes of data, and for the Conspiracy to be real, literally every single bit of that data must be fake.  My argument is not even that this is impossible, but that it is incredible and highly unlikely.  At the very least, it is less likely than actually going to space and making the observations.

Thoughts?

FET has some weird notions of how the universe works.

They kind believe in the Universe, but they think everything is really really tiny.

I think they believe the telescope data is real, but that RET (real science) is not interpreting correctly.

The hubble data is indeed real.

The data that is sent back to earth has to be looked at with common sense. First, remember the hubble is still within the earth's orbit. Only one other space trip that happened this year is the only (supposed) other trip outside earth's orbit besides the moon landing. Second, Light is very complex. It bends, curves, blindsides, outshines, reflects, etc. So the hubble could take 10,000 shots of one area with soooooooo many different settings.. that it would be different data with different images, yet it's still one point. Which then leads to the logic that even after 10000 shots, do we really know what the heck is really in that one spot? Third, we don't think the universe is tiny. In fact the universe is vast. One of the foundational ideals of flat earthers is: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe. The cosmos hold a vast array of points of light that we see as stars, and fact is other planets do exist. The planets exist on different planes. And that planet is also disk/flat like.. and it too is the center of that planet's universe.

Think about it like atoms. Can an oxygen atom go into the 'universe' or inside a hydrogen atom?   

Oxygen and Hydrogen are the center of their atom universe. Which I ensure is also vast.

The hubble data is indeed real.

The data that is sent back to earth has to be looked at with common sense. First, remember the hubble is still within the earth's orbit. Only one other space trip that happened this year is the only (supposed) other trip outside earth's orbit besides the moon landing. Second, Light is very complex. It bends, curves, blindsides, outshines, reflects, etc. So the hubble could take 10,000 shots of one area with soooooooo many different settings.. that it would be different data with different images, yet it's still one point. Which then leads to the logic that even after 10000 shots, do we really know what the heck is really in that one spot? Third, we don't think the universe is tiny. In fact the universe is vast. One of the foundational ideals of flat earthers is: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe. The cosmos hold a vast array of points of light that we see as stars, and fact is other planets do exist. The planets exist on different planes. And that planet is also disk/flat like.. and it too is the center of that planet's universe.

Think about it like atoms. Can an oxygen atom go into the 'universe' or inside a hydrogen atom?   

Oxygen and Hydrogen are the center of their atom universe. Which I ensure is also vast.

I disagree with a number of your premises, but, for the sake of argument, let's concede that Hubble data is unreliable (although it still begs the questions of how thousands of scientists keep making consistent and novel discoveries from such unreliable data without any noticeable discrepancies).  What about the data collected from all of the other missions to the solar system?  What about the Pioneer missions, the Voyager missions, Cassini, Galileo, MESSENGER, Mariner, and many others?  What do we make of the images that many of these missions have taken of a spherical Earth?  Of the other spheres in our solar system?

I think that my argument is persuasive because it relies on very few assumptions, and because it does not require ever-increasing complexities and contrivances to explain its observations.  There is a vast amount of astronomical data collected from space-based instruments.  The data are universally interpreted as evidence in favor of a round Earth.  The data are either entirely genuine, partially genuine, or entirely inauthentic.  If the data are even partially genuine, and those data support a round Earth, then we should believe the Earth is round.  The probability that the entire data set has been artificially constructed, and that such a construction would go unnoticed, and that such a contrivance would be as nuanced as the observed data, is much lower than the probability that the data is at least partially genuine.  Thus, we should believe that the Earth is round.