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 - Gaia

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 09, 2018, 08:16:26 AM »
I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.

Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.

Fair enough, it's possible that the astronauts were simply mistaken when looking at the Earth, but surely they would have noticed that the trip to the Moon was significantly shorter than they had anticipated or that they were practically level with the Sun?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« on: September 06, 2018, 07:45:26 PM »
I'm a bit confused as to why you think that any of this proves gravitational waves to be fake or that the scientist deliberately faked them. The fact that there are other scientist questioning the methods and conclusions as well as the scientis participating in these studies admitting possible inaccuracies only proves that the scientific community works the way it supposed to; by constantly re-evaluating itself and admitting that there is always room for improvement.
Even the blind injections only show how diligently the scientist try to make sure everything works as it's supposed to.

Even if it turns out that they didn't find gravitational waves proves neither that they don't exist or that the experiment failed. The LIGO has still collected a ton of data which can be incredibly useful in the future even if it is "just" noise. If nothing else at least it has offered valuable information of the difficulties measuring gravitational waves.
Science never offers ultimate truths about anything, nor does it claim to do so. The scientists proclaiming that they had found the gravitational waves did nothing wrong in doing so, that was the conclusion they drew from what they found, whether or not that conclusion will turn out to be true won't make them frauds.

Flat Earth Theory / Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 03, 2018, 10:18:51 AM »
Hey there! I've got an other question which only just occurred to me (if this has been addressed all ready I would appreciate to be pointed to right direction).

If the Earth is flat, why did the space mission fail?

I know this sounds a bit weird, but bear with me. There are plenty of reasons why going to space is incredibly difficult, just the sheer enormity of the distances makes it both dangerous and expensive to make it even to the nearest of destinations. On top of that there is a myriad of other difficulties posed by the atmosphere, gravity and the Van Allen belts just to name a few.

However, quite a few of these complications would seem to disappear when assuming the flat earth model. So why is it impossible to make space flights high enough to be level with The Sun, observe the whole of the Earth etc. which would have led to the discovery of flat Earth ?

I understand that this isn't a question to which there can be an answer backed by empirical evidence but I would appreciate your theories and ideas.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses
« on: August 26, 2018, 06:43:54 AM »
How do you propose interpreting those instruments without using your senses? Is there a sixth sense called "instrument viewing" that I'm not privy to?

I look at a VU Meter on a recording device, or a mixing desk, and it tells me if the signal is within an acceptable range. So I'm using my eyes (sight) to judge an audio signal that I can only truly sense with my ears. 

Is this the 'sixth sense' to which you refer?

And yes, I would use a geiger counter, and interpret the rapid clicks aurally, or look at a display visually, rather than commit to an excursion through the hot zone, and let my body tell me I was wrong later.....  Sixth sense, indeed....

If your own senses aren't reliable, then it doesn't make any sense to say that an instrument perceived with those same senses is. For example, if you say "I don't trust my hearing" but then you say "but I trust this geiger counter that I can only hear using my ears" then you're not making any sense. Either you can trust your senses to correctly interpret your reality, or you can't. There's no third option.

Yes, it is true that our brains can only receive information through our five senses (and I never referred to a sixth one, in fact I pointed out I don't have one). Because of this our perception of the world is never 100% reliable, however the purpose of scientific equipment as well as the whole scientific method have been developed for the very reason of minimizing these inaccuracies.

For why I would trust an instrument over my own senses is simply because it has been built for the purpose of measuring a specific phenomena.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses
« on: August 25, 2018, 03:52:23 PM »
How exactly are you drawing a conclusion about reality without using your senses? I certainly hope you're not about to tell us you have some kind of direct connection to the universe that doesn't involve perceiving it first.
See my similar thread. There are things we can measure with certain instruments which we can’t percieve.
Our senses are limited and can be fooled, they are not sufficient to determine everything about reality.

Yes, AllAroundTheWorld got my point. I certainly don't claim to posses some sort of 6th sense to understand the universe. Sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer.

Of course our senses are the only way we can receive information, however most natural phenomena can be measured and observed with much more precision by different instruments, these findings make much more reliable foundation for understanding analysing these things. 

Flat Earth Theory / Reliability of senses
« on: August 25, 2018, 02:24:21 PM »
Hello, I'm new here and I find this whole forum fascinating. I hope my question is something a bit different as I understand you might find answering the same questions over and over a tad tiresome.

 I've read quite a few of the debates and one of the things that stood out for me in the arguments given by the flat earth proponents is that they unfailing trust the evidence given out by their senses.
By this I mean that the most compelling evidence for flat earth seem to be the fact it looks flat, it can't be spinning because we can't feel it etc.

What I'm curious about is why you think human senses (which are relatively imprecise and can be fooled by both natural and man made phenomena) and perception (which is inherently limited and biased) are the best me and to draw conclusions of reality?

Hope this is the right place for this question and thank for any answers in advance

Pages: [1]