41

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:50:27 AM »

I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.

What makes you think that you are even remotely qualified or capable of verifying things empirically? I don't mean that in a nasty way, but what training or special mental capabilities do you possess that qualifies you to verify everything? No one can verify everything.

The trust thing - you don't have to trust one teacher or individual. You trust the body of knowledge because it has been tested an verified to the extents possible. Nothing is 100%, but we have amassed a lot of knowledge that people use to get work done. Do you ever doubt that flipping the light switch in your home will result in the light coming on? (assuming there isn't a blackout, of course) Did you ever verify that quadrillions of electrons are flowing back and forth 60x every second in the light bulb? No, you don't have to or need to. People have already figured it out and it works. You can use that knowledge reliably, but you can't empirically verify it. Nothing in life is 100% and eventually, you either trust that the whole world isn't pulling the wool over your eyes, or you go down the rabbit hole and start believing things like the Earth is flat even though we can and have proven over and over and over again that is certainly not.

I'm not intellectually nor financially able to verify everything, all the time.
I'm not omnipresent, nor immortal, so I'm not physically able to test every claim, there's too many of them.
But I am able to verify some things, some times, and some things are more in need of verification than others, some claims mainline science makes are harder to believe than others.
I also have a rough idea of what's in and out of my league, for example I know stuff with complicated math is beyond me, I'd have to do a lot of studying just to keep up and even then, I might have trouble.
However, in order to earn my trust, you have to show me some things I can verify, and then maybe I'll be more willing to believe the things I can't.

Yea they have some impressive gadgets and gizmos, so they must know what they're doing on some level.
Some of the science we're privy to must be accurate and not mistaken, exaggerated or an outright lie, but that doesn't mean all or even much of it isn't mistaken, exaggerated or an outright lie.
When it comes to astronomy, I feel very little has been proven to me.
I have little idea what's up there in outer space, or what they're doing up there, very few people really do.

42

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:24:13 AM »

It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too,  like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.

There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.

Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.

The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?

Maybe this discussion might best be considered closed
But if or if not, a few thoughts.

How many courses  have you taken where you have classroom hours on theory and then more class room hours following in lab proving and verifying the theories ?

Getting back to the subject, are you saying you wouldn't trust anyone at an observatory ?
How much do you know about how they measured those distances ?

No, I would trust them very little.
I would listen to their claims, and use the observatory and whatever other means I had at my disposal to verify those claims.
Of course I couldn't verify every claim astronomers have ever made, but I'd at least attempt to verify the basics, like how far the moon is from the earth, how far the moon is from the sun and so on, and if I couldn't verify them to my satisfaction, I wouldn't believe them and I'd make why I don't believe them known to the public via social media.
However if they checked out, I'd be more trusting of mainstream astronomy and science in general in the future, but not absolutely so.

You see theirs degrees of trust, you're selling a false dichotomy, where either we accept everything mainstream science has to say all the time, in spite of whatever our experience, reason (not only our individual experience and reason, but the collective experience and reason of our society as a whole aka common sense), alternative research and intuition is telling us, in spite of the fact that so few people ever have a chance to verify some of their claims, in spite of how much money and politics are being thrown at some of their claims, in spite of how complicated, convoluted and far fetched some of their claims can be, how assumption, culture, language bound and riddled their interpretations of that data can be, or...throw the baby out with the bathwater sort of speak, stick our fingers in our ears and go crawl under a rock somewhere, never to pick up another book or use another piece of technology again.

There's a difference between faith and trust for me, the way I define them.
I have faith in almost nothing, I have trust in some things, but my trust must be earned, authority of itself is insufficient.

In spite of the fact they've been caught by others and themselves knowingly and unknowingly exaggerating their claims thousands of times, like how they used to tell us sugar and tobacco were harmless, even good for us.

43

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:00:33 AM »

It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too,  like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.

There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.

Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.

The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?

If that is the way you think, if you will pardon me for saying it, if it is true that you think that way,  you would be a hopeless case if you ever expected to get a job in the real world in any field of science or engineering. Maybe you are in some other occupation where you don't need to know these things.

I could give you an example of my own experiences but I have suspicions you would not believe me.

So.......I think I 'll just give it up as a lost cause ,  bow out and leave it to anyone else who wants to have a go at it with you.
.

There's a time to question and critique, and a time not to question and critique, in fact, it's been said there's a time for everything under the sun.
If you want to play it safe, and believe everything your professors tell you, you can become a professor, scientist or engineer yourself, albeit a mediocre, unremarkable one.
But if you want to think outside the box, be imaginative, creative, and reasonably critical of the information you've receive, you may advance your field in bold, new and fruitful directions.
I don't know why you're so black/white, I'm not being black/white, at least I don't think I am.
Just because you question some things, some times, doesn't mean you have to question everything, all the time.
Life and thought are, and ought to be more nuanced than that.

44

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 11:48:49 PM »

It is very simple. You just have to trust persons who are experts in their fields, such as those at the astronomical observatories to give you the answers. You just have to trust your instructors. If you don't know little or anything about anything you have to do some study to learn about it. Most engineers and scientists started out in first grade, too,  like anyone else. They just continued on studying and learning farther than other persons.

There you go, trust authority, trust your teachers, professors, doctors, government, the pope, the media, Coca Cola, McDonald's, Walmart, Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.

Most teachers don't verify anything they've been taught, so they actually don't know anything.
Engineers can often use what they've been taught, so I take little issue with that.
That's actually probably the best form of verification, being able to use something.
If you can use it than they must be right about something, althou they may not be verifying everything they're teaching.

The trouble is no one, except for NASA and some other government space agencies can supposedly use 'factoids' like the sun is 149.6 (I love how specific they are about something they've never been to, and can never go to. Not 150 million kilometers, 149.6, how do you like that? Next year they'll say it's actually 149.8, and a few decades from now they'll say it's actually 188.295. Derrr, can we all just agree it's really, fragging far??? But that's just it, maybe it's much, much closer...or further than they think or say they know.) million kilometers away, so you can't verify it that way, by using it to do something the way an engineer does, so how can you verify it?

45

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 08:24:48 PM »

Everyone to their own beliefs.
I have made this apology before, but I believe that if you had never worked in some job that depended on the earth being round, you might be taken into this flat earth nonsense.
If you want to learn about something, you have to do some study of it.
You have to do that in the real world.

We're not talking about FET now, we're talking about the layout of the heavens.
Have you ever been to an astronomical observatory, and if so, how did it help you prove the Sun was 149.6 million kilometers from the earth?
I'm not saying you don't have proof, maybe you do, I just want to see and interpret it for myself.

46

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 02:57:58 PM »

NASA and science are big business, the more they claim to know, and the more they make their claims look good, the richer they'll be.

47

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 02:51:15 PM »

And yea I am someone who's 'paranoid', or I would say, cynical, skeptical about NASA's claims, just as I'm careful and cautious about government, or the media, or corporations claims.
I would like to verify at least some of these claims myself, before I adopt their cosmological paradigm, of course I can't verify everything myself in one life time, but to verify none of it, for everyone just to take their word for everything, all the time, is no different than being a Muslim, or a Catholic: 'well the theologians have their reasons for believing what they do, no need to examine any of them ourselves'.

48

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 02:46:19 PM »

I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.

Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?

Forget about NASA if you are one of those suffering from the flat earth NASA Paranoia.
An astronomical observatory is the best place to go for proof.
But be assured that the earth is a globe and not some flat disc with an ice ring, et cetera, et cetera, and so forth.
LOL

Before I go to a stellar observatory, I'm wondering how it could prove that stars are suns, that suns are millions of times bigger than the earth, and that they're 'light years' away from the earth?

49

Flat Earth Community / Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 01:12:38 PM »

I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.

Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?

50

Flat Earth Community / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll

« on: August 18, 2017, 02:18:44 AM »

Whatever topic we decide to discuss democratically, I'll chime in.

I voted perspective, but I'll discuss conspiracy if that's what people want to talk about.

I don't know much about distances, and I'm not that interested in them, I don't know why, just bores me or overwhelms my brain for some reason.
There's only so much room in my brain for flat earth topics, so that one sort of fell by the wayside...althou I have a strange, sort of semi-serious theory about how distances might work on a flat earth.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Public Vice, Private Virtue

« on: August 17, 2017, 04:04:28 PM »

The lazier, more slothful and unproductive people are at work, the less money they'll tend to have, the less they'll be able to consume and indulge in their spare time.
The less they splurge and consume, the less resources will have to be extracted from the earth, saving the environment in the process.
Myself I think everyone that can should pay their way, but other than that, why pressure ourselves or others to achieve more, or be more productive than they feel like being?

Is their some deficiency of productivity I'm not aware of?
Are machines not amplifying productivity a hundred fold?
The world is awash with mechanical and organic capital, saturated.
Is there a lack of creativity or goods and services?
Is the earth and its bounty inexhaustible?
Are workaholics really so virtuous?
Is their intent to benefit society, or are they merely more avaricious than the rest of us?

I think in many-most cases it's more-mostly a case of the latter, not the former.
People are having less kids, and I think that's a good thing, people should only have one or two kids these days max, after all the less rare humans are, the bigger the supply of humans is, the more the demand for them goes down, as it should, rightfully so.
The last thing we need is more mouths to feed, more crowds, pollution and noise.
Speaking of which we need to cut down on immigrants, way too bloody man of them.

The problem is people are still working too hard.
How hard do you have to work if you only have your self to support or one kid?
Why do you need a house?
Why not just wait for your parents to die so you can move into theirs, or live in their basement, or just rent or buy a one or two bedroom?
What do you need a big, stupid house for, when you'd rather be online than cutting the grass anyway, cleaning or decorating rooms and things you rarely if ever use?
The things and stuff online are free, you don't have to work for them, it's a virtual Garden of Eden.
If I want to hear a piece of music, or watch a video, or play a game, I simply pluck it from the tree.

It's fun to recycle and throw things away.
I'm always thinking of reasons I don't need things that I have, or reasons I don't need to buy things.
Things take up so much space, and you can usually get by just fine without them.
Before the end of the year I'm going to look through all the things I have, which probably isn't much lot by most peoples standards, and figure out which ones I'm going to toss in the bin.
I can't wait, it's going to be so much fun!
Don't even donate them, return the materials to nature where they belong.
There are too many people with too much things.
Population should be 90-99% of what it is.

You see this guy right here:



Or this guy here:



It's because of guys like this, the secular Bernarde Mandevilles on the one hand, and the religious John Calvins on the other, the world is so topsy-turvy.
The scourge of consumerism began primarily in the northwestern nations of Europe in the renaissance and 'enlightenment', but it did not end there, we took our dark values with us wherever we went, and they have since encompassed the whole globe, and perhaps they served us Europeans for a time, but they've long outlived their usefulness, their sustainability.
I think it's time some of us toss these values in the scrapheap, and search for new ones.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Softening on Crime

« on: August 17, 2017, 12:34:48 AM »

Why have punishments for crime softened in the west in last two or three centuries?

I have a few theories:

One is it was harder to catch criminals back then, so when you did catch them, you had to make an example of them.

Two is people had more of a sense of community, of togetherness, so when you transgressed the law, people were more hurt by it, more offended.

Three is life was poorer, nastier and shorter, people were harder, tougher, it took more to deter them from committing crimes, and they had a stronger stomach for violence, they weren't as apprehensive about dishing it out.

The king and the aristocracy made the laws, and they were often above them, so they had nothing to lose by making tough laws and everything to gain.
It was their own order they were maintaining, why break their own self serving order, and why not strengthen as much as possible?

We have more resources now, to both quarantine and rehabilitate people, back then they didn't have the means to take care of criminals, certainly not very well, so conditions were poorer, and punishments swift: amputation, execution.
Not only do we have more material resources, but we have more psychological ones at our disposal additionally, we have more effective drugs now for treating the sorts of mental illnesses that're thought to exacerbate violent or criminal tendencies, and we have more in the way of counselling and therapy in our inventory.

It was believed laws were made by or at least given the okay by the Gods, so you weren't just breaking a village's law, a town's or even just a state's, but the divine, absolute and objective law.

Laws have always changed, but probably more now more than ever, as the pace of society as a whole is changing, continually updating and supposedly upgrading, reassessing and evaluating its morals and values, its ethos, and so the law is viewed as more arbitrary now, questionable, and so we're more hesitant about punishing people severely.
We're also more familiar with how things are done in other countries, and even in other provinces or states, which makes laws seem even less immutable.

Females are having more of a say in politics, and there may be a tendency for them to be more lenient when doling out punishments, at least when the crime doesn't affect them personally.

While sometimes it can seem like it's worse than ever before, violent crime has been decreasing significantly for centuries, and so it may seem less necessary to root or stamp it out powerfully and speedily whenever and wherever it's found.

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Define & Destroy

« on: August 14, 2017, 03:15:36 AM »

I think the USA itself could be said to have an ideology, and gradually, perhaps inevitably, it's becoming the ideology of the world, for better, but mostly for worse.
There's few individuals, nations and countries that aren't fully or partly on board.

Is it humanism, science and technology?
Politically is it representative, liberal democracy?
Economically is it capitalism?
Socially is it progressivism, or multiculturalism and feminism?
It's probably all of the above.
Perhaps more than anything thou, it's consumerism, the notion society is improving if people are taking more from the earth, turning more of it into things people think they need and/or like, and giving it to them at whatever price they'll pay.

Now there're many casualties and consequences of this ideology, to the environment and to ourselves, and society is slowly awakening to them, but it's probably too little too late.
endless growth is not an option for the USA and its cronies, it's compulsory.
There may be a few bumps, and if absolutely necessary, we might have to occasionally slow down a little on our road to a consumer's paradise, where everything we could ever possibly imagine or wish for is a mere click, or thought away, but only temporarily, until we can find a way to resume or increase the pace of change without annihilating ourselves and everything on ball earth in the process, but we should never, ever have to come to a halt, or, dare I even say, reverse course in any way, perish the thought.

I believe that you could do away with everything, democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech, perhaps even feminism and it'd still be the USA so long as there's Coca Cola, McDick's, Walgreens and the Gap, so long as there's haves and have nots, so long as people, or at least some people have loads more than they need, know what do with or use, and the promise of everlasting shit to come if we all just work hard enough, or at least work hard enough at cheating or better yet rigging the system.
We may have to sell some of our rights and freedoms along the way to get there, we may even have to sell our souls to Satan, it doesn't matter, by God, Satan or Mohammed we'll get there.
It's what we consume now that defines us, makes us Americans, or Amerophiles: coke or pepsi, Chrysler, GM, Ford, Bentley or BMW?

But of course, it won't last, every civilization that has ever existed has come to an end, and the bigger they are...and never have we been more big for our britches, figuratively and literally.
While I think civilization, at the very least as we know it is doomed, perhaps some individuals and small groups can survive, and do their part, however futile, in changing course, if not for civilization/culture as a whole, than at least for themselves and their friends.

I am an anti-consumerist needless to say, not only should growth slow down and stop, but it should recede decades or even centuries in many regards.
We need to localize, not globalize, and work on being greener, not just, or even primarily for the sake of the environment and unborn generations, but for our own health and well being.
Rampant, reckless, unbridled and unchecked consumption is making us all a hell of a lot sicker.
I think asceticism is the answer, and minimalism-moderation, reducing what we produce/consume down to what is essential, and little else, being more appreciative and content with less.
If you're already off the grid, that's great, I'm still fully connected, but I may not be someday.

Anyway we live in interesting times, and with resource shortages and wars looming, times are sure to get a whole lot more interesting before the end of the century, but where there is disaster there is usually also opportunity, at least for some with the resourcefulness to look for and seize it.
I really don't believe life as we know it will survive this century, I mean after two world wars and the cold war, we should be counting our lucky stars we're here at all, right now.

54

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is most likely the correct model of the Flat Earth?

« on: August 11, 2017, 11:21:23 PM »

People think if the earth is flat it either terminates shortly after the ice wall, or it never terminates, but it's possible it has an edge, it's just millions of miles away from the ice wall, and several, whatever you want to call them, pond worlds, each with its own sun(s) or gigantic hydrothermal vent(s)/volcano(es) that melt the otherwise seemingly ubiquitous ice into water, making life possible.
Even if there is an edge, is that all there is?
What's beyond the edge, another disk earth, something else?
What's below it, nothingness, or perhaps the edge is more like a gigantic cliff, with ground, water or something below, it may be so distant and so dark there, that you can't even see what's below or beyond the precipice.

As I have noted on other thread , there is a quote (I believe it is from some of Rowbotham's writings ? This may not be the exact wording ? ) :
"Beyond the ice wall there  is eternal darkness, frigid temperatures, ice, snow, and howling winds."

Yes if the earth is indeed flat, that much might be certain, but I doubt that's all there is in existence, probably a lot more gong on, perhaps infinitely more, other worlds on the infinite flat plane or flat planes, and perhaps things we don't even have words for, and can't imagine, different physical laws.

55

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is most likely the correct model of the Flat Earth?

« on: August 11, 2017, 11:17:23 PM »

Our pond world (by that I mean everything within the ice wall, the oceans, continents and islands below, and the sun, moon and stars above) might only be one of many, each one separated from one another by thousands or millions of miles of ice and snow, but perhaps one of the other ones is heated by a gigantic active volcano or volcanoes instead of a sun, dozens or hundreds of times bigger than Mount Everest.
The summit couldn't support life, perhaps even the base couldn't, or only extremophiles, but the lands near the base might.
It'd be so big, bright and hot, you could see it from hundreds or thousands of miles away, it'd light up the sky.
Another pond world might be heated underground, by hydrothermal vents.

56

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is most likely the correct model of the Flat Earth?

« on: August 11, 2017, 10:11:36 PM »

People think if the earth is flat it either terminates shortly after the ice wall, or it never terminates, but it's possible it has an edge, it's just millions of miles away from the ice wall, and the earth has several, whatever you want to call them, pond worlds, each with its own sun(s) or gigantic hydrothermal vent(s)/volcano(es) that melt the otherwise seemingly ubiquitous ice into water, making life possible.
Even if there is an edge, is that all there is?
What's beyond the edge, another disk earth, something else?
What's below it, nothingness, or perhaps the edge is more like a gigantic cliff, with ground, water or something below, it may be so distant and so dark there, that you can't even see what's below or beyond the precipice.

57

Flat Earth Community / Re: Needing a knowledgeable person in the FE movement to enlighten me.

« on: August 08, 2017, 02:50:41 PM »

You're not a narcissist just because you're a conspiracy or flat earth theorist

Nope, but there is a direct correlation between people with narcissistic personality and conspiracy theory, and the entirety of your post, screams it. Your scorn of the mainstream as mindless automatons, whilst affiliating yourself with the heroes of free thought, this whole “nobility in challenging authority” versus the drones that are too scared to, priceless! I bet you wear purple.

You challenge us to tread the paths less trod, because you “know” we couldn’t have, and still come to the conclusions we have.

Science, is subject to humanities frailties and faults as any other, but in my personal dealings with scientists, I have found some, to be the most innovative and daring of people. Some of the most ground-breaking of discoveries were made against the tide of perceived wisdom. Evolution, Plate tectonics, all struggled against the status Quo, as did Luis Alvarez with his theory of mass extinction due to meteor impact. Junior doctor, Barry Marshall was so sure the medical establishment was wrong about the cause of stomach ulcers that he swallowed the bacteria he believed were to blame, then cured himself of the Ulcers using antibiotics and still had to fight for years for it to be accepted.

The reason these are now part of the furniture of modern science is because they are right, whereas FE has had 100yrs to come up with proof and has demonstrably failed to do so.

So I'm a narcissist and you bet I wear purple?
Says the person with an avatar that looks like a witch or warlock from Harry Potter or LOTR *laughs.
I assure you my attire is very drab, I wouldn't standout in a crowd, fashion is the least of my worries.

58

Flat Earth Community / Re: Needing a knowledgeable person in the FE movement to enlighten me.

« on: August 08, 2017, 02:07:36 PM »

@Spheri

I think your latest round of responses are more on target this time.
I may respond to them point by point later but for now I'll just remind everyone: I'm not a flat earther.
However flat earth is less likely to be false in my mind than in it is in your mind.
We should listen to alternative ideas more, for the reasons I've given, because no individual, institution or model can completely corner truth, and what we regard as truth can be so ephemeral.
Even if flat earth theory is false, if we were to adopt it, the world mightn't be worse off, we'd still be able to invent many techs, perhaps it would be better to be ignorant or even deluded about some aspects of nature, that we let nature keep some of her secrets, and not open Pandora's box sort of speak all at once the way we have been, we may not like or be able to handle what's inside.
There's something about thinking we live on a round world, whirling around the sun, whirling around the center of our galaxy by chance that does something to man's mind: agitates it, makes it restless.
Perhaps it would be better for man to believe he lives on a flat plane inside a cushy, cozy dome presided over by a loving deity, maybe then he wouldn't be in such a rush to uproot and overturn everything.
*Laughs I say this with my tongue half planted in its cheek, but in all seriousness, our civilization has made such a mess of things, that I think it's time we open ourselves up more to alternative models, not only in cosmology and physics, but in medicine, politics, everything, or another mass extinction event may ensue.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: Needing a knowledgeable person in the FE movement to enlighten me.

« on: August 08, 2017, 01:24:02 PM »

I'm sorry, was this suppose to be about me and my views?
Because it looks more like some caricature of me/my views you managed to conjure out of the aether, somehow.
My suggestion to you is: listen more, ask questions more.

You *must* be joking. I didn't just make up a bunch of stuff, I quoted you, and responded to what you had written, line-by-line.


If you want questions, here's some: Why not defend or at the very least, clarify anything you said? Can you tell me how I'm understanding you wrong? Why not answer any of the questions I put forth?

I'll repeat one of those now: What puts you ahead of the vast majority of the planet when it comes to correctly identifying the shape of the Earth?

You seem to have partly misinterpreted or exaggerated everything you quoted in your responses to it, and I'm not sure if I have the time/energy to correct them all, it's so overwhelming.
Perhaps I will correct one or two of them later today or some other time if I'm feeling up to the task.

60

Flat Earth Community / Re: Needing a knowledgeable person in the FE movement to enlighten me.

« on: August 08, 2017, 05:02:24 AM »

I'll make one more point and then I'm done for the night.
Sphereicult asked: where is the flat earth technology, round earth theory has given us this, that, got us to space, which flat earthers and others dispute, and so on.
But how much earthbound technology is really dependent on round earth, I suspect very little of it, I've heard round earthers say long bridges, canals, tunnels and their ilk have to be built on round earth principles, and honestly I've yet to look into this sufficiently to formulate an opinion.
Round earth and the standard model have been mainstream for a long time, the former for millennia, the latter has been a work in progress for the previous several centuries, so naturally many technologies have sprung up around them, just as many technologies sprung up around the Ptolemaic model and the physics, chemistry and medicine of its time.
Even a half baked or incomplete model of the cosmos, physics, chemistry and medicine, will often still allow you to derive some technologies from it, or in spite of it if it's really bad, and as complete as a model is, there's always more work to do.
Sometimes two models differ only in their explanation of phenomenon, not in the phenomena they believe in and deal with themselves, and so one will work just as good as the other.
Perhaps the quantity of technologies has increased lately, and perhaps this is due in part to round earth and the standard model, perhaps other things as well, say ideologies like humanism, capitalism and consumerism, which value productivity and material, technological and other form so called progress, perhaps these ideologies are equally or more to praise, or blame than science.
Some of our inventions have come about in spite of mainstream science, like the Wright brothers did away with the science of their day and just did their own experiments in order to fly, and government/mainstream science is slowly incorporating practices that've been around in the alternative medical community in the west for decades, such as Chiropractry, Acupuncture, Naturopathy and Osteopathy.
Quantitatively technology has increased, but qualitatively?
Qualitatively thanks to modern science and tech, so many unintended consequences have come about, that perhaps it'd've been best had we never invented many of them.
How smart can modern science be, if it's made such a mess of things in so many regards, it seems to me awfully stupid in many respects, perhaps we should be listening more to Shaman instead, the society built around their cosmology, medicine and ways of thinking sustained humanity and life on earth for, if the science can be trusted on this: tens of thousands of years, where as our civilization seems totally unsustainable, and may be a mere blip, before a great fall from which we, indeed all life on earth, may never recover.
If flat earth ever becomes mainstream, technologies will be based on it, rest assured.