Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!
The way science progresses is that the next generation grows up being familiar with all of the evidence and data, rather than trying to convince the "skeptics" that evidence exists for seemingly absurd claims, and I will list a few examples...
Previous Paradigm: "Rocks do not fall from the sky."
Previous Paradigm: "Sickness is due to blood-poisoning; the idea of invisible forces that the eye cannot see being the cause of disease is absurd!"
Previous Paradigm: "Continents are not floating."
Previous Paradigm: "Heavier-than-air devices do not fly."
Previous Paradigm: "Pictures do not move unless you're daydreaming."
Previous Paradigm: "You cannot communicate instantaneously at long distances, and to say that messages can be delivered without sending a courrier on a horse over such distances, well that it utterly ridiculous!"
I was tempted to put "skeptic" but decided that "previous paradigm" was probably the most "neutral" term I could use.
Few people realise just how "controversial" the ideas were, and I should even mention Mr. Ohm, because Ohm's Law was actually a
posthumous work, not accepted until 20 years
after he died, for which his "colleagues" actually griefed him a lot. This is nothing new. Many inventors throughout history were vilified during their time before their ideas/concepts became "main-stream" knowledge. Anyway, pursuant to the above quotes, I now list the "Changed Paradigm" Shifts...
Changed Paradigm: A meteorite fell near the French Academy of Sciences and as a result forced the "scientists" into redacting the "confirmed" statement that rocks do not or cannot fall from the sky.
Changed Paradigm: The "microscope" was "invented" and "proved" the existence of the "invisible forces that the eye cannot see" for which are termed as germs/viruses/bacteria/etc.
Changed Paradigm: Continental Drift
Changed Paradigm: The Wright Brothers (Heavier-Than-Air Flying Machines)
Changed Paradigm: The Television, Motion Pictures, etc.
Changed Paradigm: Radio Telegramming.
It's fact that throughout history, some science, not ALL, has been rejected by various religions (not just Christianity, and not even primarily Christianity) for seemingly being too "radical" or challenging doctrine too much.
This wasn't a jab at religion, it's just stating historical fact; many religions all throughout the globe have had reactions from just mild irritation to outright "burning at the stake" type stuff when it comes to introducing science into the mainstream, or trying to challenge doctrine directly or indirectly with new scientific developments.
That said, many religions also have coveted or enriched certain aspects or fields of science, for sure, all throughout history, so it's not all just hate for science by any means.
Something as "world-changing" (no pun intended) though as the stuff that Copernicus and Galileo came up with though definitely would have blown quite a few people's minds, and some were accepting of it, and others... well, yeah.
Regarding that "science" comment by a rather "snarky" poster, REAL science comes from QUESTIONING EVERYTHING,
regardless of how "ridiculous" the question may seem, and also doing your OWN experiments. Unfortunately, much of so-called science
has turned into a kind of a religion or dogmatic belief-system, and there is still no guarantee that the "tour" videos have not been blue-screened/green-screened, considering how many billions of dollars worth of budget available to NASA to pull that off (apparently, not everybody knows this, but literal video-editing software exists to where you can even make it literally look like your house got caught on fire, even burning all the way down to the ground, even though nothing actually happened to your house at all). I also made mention of
Dr. Ruper Sheldrake for a
reason, because you see, the "Speed of Light" having been suddenly "defined" one particular year as a "constant" and "consensus" deciding its value is not exactly very scientific, particularly when there
have been
other values that
used to be in the academic school-books (depending on year of publication).
Let me make this clearer, because in scientific history, even the distance to the sun has had different values within the academic school-books OTHER than 93.3 million miles away (give or take some range of around 400 million miles altogether), and for those who do not "get" the implications of something "fundamental" like the Speed of Light values, even a SLIGHT change to the "consensus" number Speed-of-Light would mean that nearly ALL your "scientific beliefs" have to be thrown out the window (due to needing to RE-Calculate the Distance to the Sun, due to needing to RE-Calculate the Age of the Universe, due to needing to RE-Calculate a whole bunch of other measurements, and few people seem to question the reliability of so-called Carbon-Dating, but it's not as reliable as non-experimenters seem to want to believe, not for time-frames that exceed a few months anyway [Non-Experimenters: People who think that they are scientists or scientific, but get all knowledge about science from reading text, instead of actually getting their hands dirty and doing their
own personal experiments
themselves]).
Some urgent matters have come up recently so I will need to withdraw from too much more interaction as I quote from an important individual who wrote that...
for there is NO ‘time’ left for discussion or debate as to whether the world is ‘round or flat’ or ‘this or that.’
P.S.: Find some footage of satellites or the ISS from weather-balloons. Surely it cannot be impossible if the ISS is supposed to be visible from the ground with binoculars/telescopes.
