Comment on New forum by Physicsgeek.
Pardon me, but do you have any idea whatsoever of how completely unconvincing and laughably unsound this argument is? There is a simple test to determine whether we live inside a Dyson sphere, as you propose, or on a conventional planet. Just look at the fucking horizon. If you can see a horizon line of any sort, then you are on a conventional spherical planet. If there is no horizon line, then you are most likely in a Dyson sphere.
And if you cheat and do this test in the middle of a cloud of fog, then you are a person of no intelligence.
Furthermore, YouTube videos do not qualify as evidence. Likewise, Wikipedia articles do not qualify as evidence (although any genuine scientific papers referenced by said articles would).
Your argument is scientifically invalid because you completely ignore the most basic and most important piece of evidence. Please reformulate and retest your argument.
Also, thanks for the laugh that I got as I read this ridiculous claptrap. I needed it. Even though this post is horse manure, it does at least provide some societal benefit.
Totalrecall, you apparently have no knowledge of the physics of springs. I suggest reviewing freshman physics.
Physicsgeek Also Commented
I will post nothing more as I am clearly wasting my time here. Your arguments have done nothing more than give my quantum dynamics professor a good laugh (which he needed, by the way–thanks for that). I have a dissertation to write, and if you really, genuinely believe that measurements taken using a wooden, 19th-century instrument that was left in the ocean for five months are valid, then you are clearly irrational. I strongly suggest that you actually take basic geography, astronomy, physics, and geology classes at an accredited college before you attempt to rewrite science.
Again: YouTube videos are not evidence in any way.
Also, your subjectively determined “probabilities” are in no way an acceptable stand-in for objective evidence. Your arguments are still scientifically invalid, and you have offered no genuine, scientifically acceptable evidence to support them.
Furthermore, your jokes about science being a cult remove any credibility that you had. Please take some time to think about just how irrational, unintelligent, and downright insulting you sound in your response to me.
Finally, one guy at a computer cannot overturn established theories with invalid hypotheses. Please, for your own sake, rethink how you are using your time and instead do something that reflects better on your credibility, such as working as a sales rep or joining the National Guard. You are wasting your time here and convincing no one–at least, no one who is not already an established crank. You seem to be a decent person and mentally stable, and I really think that you can improve your life if you think about how it reflects on your credibility to associate with the likes of Alex Jones.
And yet you don’t address the central problem, which is that your hypothesis is scientifically invalid.
You even call it “concave Earth theory,” which is intellectually dishonest, because this is an invalid hypothesis and not a theory.
Third: If you claim that our vision “does not tell us the truth,” then the only logical conclusion of that argument is that we cannot detect anything about the world by any means at all, for anyone could just claim that any particular method “does not tell us the truth” with no evidence whatsoever until everyone on Earth thought that they could not sense anything with any accuracy. Congratulations, you have just made an argumentum ad absurdum.
If you have no understanding of basic science and yet attempt to rewrite said science, then calling your post a pile of horse manure is not, in fact, an insult. If I had wanted to insult you, I would have called you a howling ignoramus and a laughable cultist toady (since basic research has found that your beliefs are indicative of a cultist of a charmingly insane fellow called Cyrus Teed).
By telling you right here and now that you are attempting to publish garbage, I am not insulting you, but doing you a favor. If you attempt to publish this claptrap anywhere other than the Internet, you will quite literally be laughed out of the international scientific community. I feel that it is kinder to nip this sort of thing in the bud so that you can fix your arguments now before you experience professional ridicule and loss of credibility.
Now, to your reference:
1. McNair was apparently a confirmed phony. This took some research, but that paper was definitely faked. Also, he apparently conveniently forgot the Coriolis effect.
2. A magazine called “Flying Saucers: The Magazine of Space Conquest” is not a valid source. You should know this. I expected better.
3. “””Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead.”””
This, right here, is a lie. Religious people lie regularly–damn it, the last Pope tried to cover up thousands of pedophile priests. Here, in fact is a list of lying fundamentalists:
Any and all high-ranking Scientologists
Kent Hovind (in fact, this man is in jail for tax evasion)
Jerry Falwell (I am including deceaed people here)
95% or more of the priests in El Salvador
Pope Boniface the Eighth
The Ayatollah Khomeni
Mullah Muhammad Omar
This is just the list from the top of my head. Furthermore, the man you call as a respectable witness, Ulysses Morrow, was a member of a cult led by a man named Cyrus Teed, which stipulated belief in a Dyson Sphere-like-Earth. If you go into an experiment expecting a particular outcome, then your results are suspect–and if, on top of that, you “forget” to account for something major like the Coriolis effect, you are being intellectually dishonest. So yes, he was lying.
Your second example is a publicity stunt with a highly suspect device performed by a number of extremely religious cultists, with no actual scientific involvement, and therefore invalid as an example.
“””The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated”””
This alone makes it invalid. Repeatability is paramount in science.
Your next point is an unintelligible mess of rehashed 19th-century experiments, which are always suspect due to their basis in a cut-throat age of publishing before verification (which is anathema to science, but try telling that to that nitwit Richard Owen).
On your fourth point: here you actually admit that you might be wrong, which is the only scientific thing that I have seen you do so far. Of course, you reference more 19th-century studies, which doesn’t bode well for your credibility, but I will give you points for admitting that your arguments are unsound.
Your conclusion: Your subjectively determined “probabilities” are laughable and have no basis in objective fact. You engage in intellectually dishonest practices such as cherry-picking and using invalid sources, and you apparently have never seen a picture taken from space, or ever actually looked at the horizon in, say, Kansas. Your arguments are unsound, and require major reformulation. I strongly suggest that you start from scratch, remove any sources produces by Cyrus Teed cultists and writers of UFO conspiracy magazines, and actually try some experiments yourself with professional equipment.