Message from @Flat Earth PhD
Discord ID: 669267946421354517
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
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
do as a single blind experiment
Yeah. Like, what tools are we willing to use without going thru the cash to prove it?
well to date mostly cameras and lasers
or even just flashing a mirror across a lake
that's pretty cheap
several of those have been done
Once we get a good understanding of things we *don't* question, it will be a whole lot easier to organize the hypotheses that need to replace current models
well that's tricky. you don't want to confine yourself too much with boundary conditions that *could* be wrong
We'll, that's science
Once we know what's wrong, we can figure out where to adjust the experiments
but most important is to clearly specify the assumptions being made
Right, absolutely
control as many variables as possible