cannot follow the scientific method

fullstop

So what about the stars moving? What's actually in motion?

we are only at step 2 in the scientific method.

we cannot truly progress to step 3 without a serious R&D budget

so we can only form hypotheses at this point

one hypothesis: the stars are fixed in a dome (firmament) which rotates

Have we arranged them according to which would be the mostly easily tested, and what tools we would need to perform the tests?

I don't know if there has been a serious brainstorm on this.

the most feasible idea I've heard to at least confirm "something" up there is a high altitude balloon launch, followed by rocket "probe" launched once balloon is at peak altitude

but even that is a helluva lot of work and $$$

not to mention getting regulatory clearance to do it from govt agencies etc...

would need an array of sensors on said probe. and be able to capture data from them.

one hour of NASAs daily budget of $55,000,000 would be more than enough

Ok, sure. But that's them and we don't need them

What are the ingredients, and where is our recipe?
Do we k ow exactly how much $$$ it would take to do the first step?
Is there a less expensive project we could work on in the mean time?

no I'm not aware of any actual protocol and budget that has been worked on

people are focusing on direct measurements of curvature... e.g. long range photography, laser/mirror tests etc...

the sky is way harder. e.g. how would you test the hypothesis that the moon is not a solid object

not easy

not impossible

but not easy

Yeah, I get that :/

but wouldn't it be an epic experiment 🙂

lots of folks would have to answer lots of questions if the hypothesis is accepted

I just wonder....if everyone spends their time playing pingpong with "the Earth is flat" and "no it's not" and "yes it is" and "*insults your mom*" that we won't actually get anywhere :(

absolutely

that's why I always say that flat earthers are the scientists. we are the ones (mostly) actually going out and doing experiments

Nikon must love us 🙂

helping to sell lots of P900 and P1000 cameras. they should give us an endorsement

XD

Nice

they could name their next model the FE2000

I think, first, I'd like to see what we do accept from the mainstream in order to avoid spending money on unnecessary duplicates

no need. this is very common in science....to replicate experiments

happens every day

Like you were saying the mass spectrometry. Do we need to prove that the machines are accurate, or can we just buy one?

you mean to assay atmospheric samples?

if so..that's a no-brainer.

in fact we could contract the work out. send the samples to a lab. even better since they are independent