Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Havonii

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 11, 2018, 10:13:57 PM »
Let me just cut through the fat and say that all of those niggling problems that come up as a result of two people refusing to agree with one another ceases to be a problem if we assume both parties are adhering to intellectually honest best practices. What do you think?

Yes, if both parties are adhering to the same problem, without the interference of personality, then the debate is not futile, but conclusive.

However until this stability can be assured, the Flat vs Round debate is a futile show of personalities, with both sides presenting theories that are incompatible with the other.


I suppose that rather than debate and try to sway each other to one side, propositions and scientific theory could be made to enhance and grow each persons perspective and knowledge of the topic.

That way, there is no 'burden of proof' because everyone is allowed to believe what they want.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 11, 2018, 09:15:00 PM »
Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

Completely understand and comprehend the principle you're describing. It doesn't work out when the two researchers are conducting the same experiment.

In your analogy, flat earthers and globe tards are looking at two different boxes (two different experiments, in your case). They each conclude differently about the cat inside the box. The problem with that analogy is that the earth is that it is NOT obscured from either party and we are NOT conducting separate experiments and observations. Rather, the earth is one cat, there is no box, and both researchers are standing in the same "room," conducting the same experiments together.

Even if these two are separated by miles, they're still standing in the same metaphorical "room" and looking at the same thing (the earth). Do you understand my objection more clearly? Unless you think I'm misunderstanding you, I think it's the other way around. Just trying to come to an agreement or at least see how we each came to our conclusions.

I understand where you are coming from. No, there is no box, and the experiment is the same.

I guess what it boils down to is the capability to accept, understand and the accumulative knowledge/ experience of the two whom conduct the experiment.
They may have different views or perspectives within the same experiment, due to the unpredictable, and somewhat spontaneous nature of the human mind when it is forced to take part in decision making, in the face of past experiences.
If one does not agree or accept the others' analysis, they must retry and debate until a conclusion is made.

The dual nature of all particles makes the conclusion that, while appearing to be stable and concrete, the Earth (or anything) is not any particular shape. Whatever the object, it inhibits wave like properties in a probable position. The Earth is definitively round, but probabilitivley, on an atomic level, it is not. 

If the cat was dead, but then revived, it was always alive.
But if the cat dies, forever, it was not never alive, but once was living.

 

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 11, 2018, 07:47:28 PM »
I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.

It surely and truly is an odd thing. All I’m saying, with respect to relativity, perspective, and the act of observation, is that it isn’t rational to say that two people can observe the same thing, draw two competing conclusions, and each be simultaneously right and wrong.

If we remove Schrodinger's cat from the box, it’s either alive or dead. With the earth, there is no box obscuring it to begin with - a flat earther and a globe tard can both observe the earth simultaneously.

Just like the earth, at least when we’re limiting our options to a binary like “flat/round” or “alive/dead,” in the cat’s case, one person may observe that the cat is alive, and one person may observe that the cat is dead. They can’t both be correct once the cat is out of the box. It is the same with the earth.

We share an objective reality in spite of our unique, subjective, first person experience. There’s a lot about the universe that we don’t yet understand, and certainly quantum theory throws a “Shrodinger’s wrench” into general relativity, if you follow my meaning, but I’m not yet comfortable enough with either model to make proclamations like yours with respect to how we define objective reality. We don’t yet know enough about either model to reconcile the two, but in the meantime, our limited perspective as hominids is most compatible and consistent with general relativity. There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t mean you should abandon objectivity and throw the objective baby out with the Einsteinian bathwater.

Take it this way,...   

Light is both a wave and a particle.

Two people are experimenting the behaviors of light, one uses a vacuum and a rotatable panel, the other uses a solid medium.

One can conclude that light is a particle, and the other a wave - they both are right, yet both are wrong.

And until another comes along and discovers the probability wave and dual properties of light, it will stay this way.

The cat may be dying.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 11, 2018, 06:56:02 PM »
I don't quite understand what all you just said, but I would like to have an intellectual conversation with you. I'm not sure where you stand on this belief but, I personally believe that the Earth is round. Just wanted to have an actual conversation.

I also know the Earth to be round, and sorry if it is confusing, but the functionalities of the universe really is an odd thing.


5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 11, 2018, 04:00:31 PM »
We develop models of reality based on their predictive power and reliability. I understand where you're coming from with respect to quantum theory, but if you're saying that both sides are simultaneously right and wrong simply because we have a tenuous grasp of the quantum notion of "perspective," insofar that it means an infinite number of possibilities can coincide with each other simultaneously, I'm going to disagree with you.

With the sole exception of quantum theory, everything else we observe about the natural world tells us that we live in an objective, grounded reality.

Consider the following example:

If someone I've never met steps on a plane and flies across the globe to land in my state, visit my workplace, and stop by my desk while I'm on a bathroom break, I have no way of knowing that they even exist, never mind that they came to visit me. Sure, I can conceive of something like this happening, but that's different from knowing with any reasonable degree of accuracy WHEN and HOW this situation might take place, if ever.

If the imaginary visitor stops by my desk and leaves a Post-It note that reads, "The author of this note does not exist," leaving and going home before I get back from the bathroom, I'm going to have a hard time reconciling the content of that message with the obvious fact that, clearly, someone left a note.

It's an interesting thought, quantum theory and the way you're interpreting it, but you're talking about it as though it's as concrete and certain as the pastrami sandwich I had for lunch this afternoon. The fact is that it's still a blossoming field, relatively speaking (haha puns) and we don't actually understand as much about it as we do other disciplines.

Yes, our reality is concrete, this is a sphere, we can predict and measure what is there.

The reason it is concrete is the same reason why an electron instantly appears in the place immediately observed.
However, when not observed, it is probable, and even then, its behaviors are out of our understanding.
What we know, is that the further into the atomic level you go, the more wavelike something is, the more unpredictable, the more infinite it is.

However size is only relative, or not relative, depending on what your reality is.
The Universe is expanding, stretching space-time infinitely, spreading every galaxy, star, planet, atom, molecule, and particle, further and further apart.

You can literally be the size of an electron, or the size of a galaxy, but relative to you, you are the size of yourself, even though you could be stretched across what would be light years relative to someone else.

With this, it is forever, we are the size of anything, infinitely.
We are all possibility, relatively.

But only to us are we this way, and only to us is the Earth only one shape.

But change your relativity, and it becomes probable, and incomprehensible.





 

6
Flat Earth Theory / The 'Burden of proof" and the Universe.
« on: January 10, 2018, 07:24:39 PM »
As we know, the Flat Earth Society claims that a Round Earth is not plausible, and never will be, due to the amount of proof that has to be attained.   

Then, on the flip side, the majority who believe in a Round (sphere) Earth claim that Flat Earth will never be proven or correct due to the extraordinary amount of evidence needed.

Both sides argue, fight, and manipulate conversations and contradictory evidence for their favor.

Each side says the other is conspiracy/ misconception.

All this for what?  Knowledge? Power? Attention?

Quantum Physics has already studied sub- atomic particles, electrons and and the wavelike and infinite attributes of the Universe.
It all only exists because of your presence, without you observing and merely living in this vast universe, it does not exist in your reality.

The universe is infinite. The Earth is infinite. You, me, and our cellular DNA is all infinite.  All possibility.   

It is an infinite plain. It is an infinite sphere.

When you do not observe the universe, It does not have to adhere to your comprehension. The universe does not have to obey the laws it is given.

The Earth is not flat,it is not round, it is all, and just that.


7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2
« on: January 09, 2018, 07:36:52 PM »
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
[/quote]

Technology and basic mechanics develop and we are able to use them to make scientific discoveries... This progression in human civilization was used by these astronomers to discover the universe.
Aristotle and many other 'ancients' spent lifetimes and countless months of research studying how exactly the earth is spherical. Does the FES completely disregard their work as being futile?
        1        +        1          =2                    1         +         1       =  2
   'ancients' + 'a fresh start'= FE         Astronomers + Technology = RE
                           
                     2                           +                          2                       = ?    have we not discovered 4?    are we so biased as to shun opportunities for human growth?

       


8
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?

I agree, the car was a bad example, but let me just say, the earth isn't nice and round 'equally curved' as most of the population may think. the Earth was created by the collection and clumping of proto-planets, and so on, making the Earth look more like this:



And depending on where you are, the Earth may seem more extremely flat or extremely curved.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Parallel universes
« on: December 22, 2017, 03:25:00 PM »
Ironically, both our solar system and our galaxy are flat. Just not the planets, or stars, or anything over the potato radius.

'potato radius' I love that. Our solar system and galaxy are flat due to the preferred motion and velocity of the nebulae, before it formed the Milky Way.
 There are galaxies and solar systems out there that are not flat, but all kinds of shapes, more like cotton candy.

10
Planet, Pete, Planet.         comparatively, Earth is on the small side.
Ah, so your comment was deliberately off-topic? My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That's called a fallacy, by the way.  (more specifically an Ad hominem)

11
Yeah, this got really off topic since the first denial.

All evidence and opinions aside, that first post linked an example photo of what it would look like to have all those power lines there. That same picture has been used a lot all over the place, it is not supposed to look real, it is supposed to display the natural curve of the earth as you look to the horizon for proper art rendering and visual effects in any form of art. (digital or non)

So yeah, pretty cool huh?

12
Yes Tom, the Earth is a pretty small planet!
Are you suggesting that the Earth is round, but much smaller than mainstream round Earthers would have you believe? This seems to come up exceptionally often, especially with people who are adamant they could clearly see curvature from a commercial aircraft - something that should be largely impossible in the standard RE model.

Planet, Pete, Planet.         comparatively, Earth is on the small side.

But to our tiny perspectives, the Earth is Huge, its everything it's the center, and for some, they just can't imagine a world that isn't the biggest thing ever.

13


The subject is not worth discussing anymore. Do you realize how small the world would be if that curve were real?



Yes Tom, the Earth is a pretty small planet!

14
At 10ft. a horizon would appear 7 miles (assuming perfect curvature) from the viewer(in RE)     Objects that are smaller than 1ft past the horizon appear not to be there.
On a flat Earth, the horizon (dissapearance point) would be as far as the human eye could see clearly (30 mi.)   

 

15
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.

The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?

find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.
What?

Evidence is produced, it is soundly busted and then you want me to keep on talking about the points brought up? It is a hoax.

Here is the original author asking his friends for help to make the photoshop.


This is his pinned tweet! He says he's going out of his way to discredit the flat earth.


And here is another abomination he has concocted using his photoshop skills.

Clearly he thinks we live on Kerbal.

Its over. This thread belongs to flat earth now, and will lay testament to the cheer-leading and fakery behind round earth.


You misunderstood, I am not saying they exist, but the lake does exist, the oceans exist. The horizon is why FE exists, and the horizon is where RE began. Lets calculate where a horizon line would be in perspective to a 10ft object on a flat world. And then well do it on a sphere world, and compare the two to a real photo!


16
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.

The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?

find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.


17
Earthquakes occur because of plate tectonics rubbing against each other and the release of built up of pressure between them. Plates at our planet's surface move because of the intense heat in the Earth's core that causes molten rock in the mantle layer to move. It moves in a pattern called a convection cell that forms when warm material rises, cools, and eventually sink down. Without this, we would not have earthquakes or mountains and the phenomenon of our continents moving would be unexplainable. I am just curious to see if the flat earth theorists have something to say on this, and how it would be possible with a flat earth.

Don't you know? The earth is on the top of an infinite stack of turtles. Whenever a turtle moves, that's an earth quake. DUH... ;)
But like really though. I think that this alone disproves it because unless there's a giant oven 6,371 kilometers under us or something (extremely improbable) I don't see how the earth can be flat, It just doesn't add up.
They posit that the molten rock beneath the crust (which is known to be there) is created by the pressure and heat of the UA pressing into the bottom of the Earth. At least for a finite, infinitely accelerating Earth. I'm not sure how the infinite Earth theory works this in to be honest. They might allow it to fall under the blanket of "We don't know"
How does this explain Pangea?

Yeah, there is excessive evidence that all the continents were once one (pangea) and the separation of the continents would be impossible with the FE model.
I BELIEVE IN DINOSAURS.... dinosaurs will win.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Parallel universes
« on: December 21, 2017, 03:39:02 PM »
But if they believe in parallel universes, than there are universes where the Earth is a sphere?, right?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The burden of proof.
« on: December 20, 2017, 07:44:21 PM »
Let me just inject a thought here...

quote from Flat Earth library article
Quote
Despite its frequent criticism from mainstream science, the Zetetic approach to  science is happy to take on board objections from its opponents because those  objections will ultimately be used to strengthen the Flat Earth position.

The 'Burden of proof' will never be met, due to the way of thinking that Zetetic provides for evidence that doesn't comply.

Quote
In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well  afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous and charitable  towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong.

What is it? Ignorance.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 20, 2017, 07:35:19 PM »
Quote
you're describing a confirmation bias machine - the 'main theory' that the Earth is flat fails to predict basically everything that can be observed about the shape of the Earth, but it is never given up. each argument against it has an ad hoc rationalization for why it actually does work shut up, and these are all shit as well, but nothing is ever allowed to touch the 'original theory.'

Tom's explanation of 'band of darkness' is shit, doesn't explain the picture at all, and on top of everything else makes no sense. It's an attempt to rationalize a photo that cleanly shows that the Earth is round into a theory that says it is flat, which it is not, so the rationalization is wrong. Proving the rationalization wrong makes the main theory stronger? That's the backfire effect in action, I guess.

Exactly, the irrational theory and philosophical reasoning for the Flat Earth rhetoric, are why their side is so persistent and unfairly weighed against proper communication  and evidence based explanation.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >