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 - jack44556677

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 27, 2021, 07:19:51 PM »

Thanks Jack for your reply, this statement explains a lot

More than you realize, i should expect! Both mass and gravity are purely mathematical entities (non real) with no demonstrable reality.  It is NOT coincidence that when combined they return to the real and measured weight they began as (and always were - they are fictional components of a real whole/entity).  Neither have ever been defined rigorously enough to go about trying to look for either, and this is very much true today for the same reasons.

It also makes it clear to me that I cannot understand your view if this is the base.

Hopefully that is a temporary predicament that we will overcome through discussion!

But I understand that - assuming this - water "at rest" would be flat.

You misunderstand.  The fact and scientific law are both established through measurement alone - they have no requirement/limitation for you (or anyone) to "assume this" nor anything else in science!  The reality of the situation is that you, as a result of indoctrination through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, ASSUME that gravity is both a real force AND causes a sustained convex curvature in large bodies of water.  It is unscientific to assume, and an affront to emperical science to accept and believe things which have never been measured (in fact, only their contrary has been measured, repeatedly for centuries)

But still curious ...

May we both be fortunate enough to remain that way!

Is this your private view of the world or is there a group of FEers sharing this "no gravity, no UA" approach? Is there any read on this world view?

My research approach and conclusions are my own - but the view that gravity isn't real is prominent among flat earth researchers and (mostly theoretical) physicists alike.

Is there any read on this world view?

There are many, but I am not sure how well the wiki here or on the sister site do at representing it.  I have a LOT written about it personally, but making it concise and consumable is tough.

It should be clear that my research conclusions as a result of the study of history and science do not represent a worldview. If you accept the conclusions, they destroy one that has been disingenuously/erroneously passed off as science from childhood.  The research findings, like most in flat earth research, are critical - nor formative.  They do not suggest alternatives :(. What you are left with is the lack of a (belief based, as all world-views are) worldview - which makes you better able to engage in objective science (and other research) without that mythological handicap.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 27, 2021, 03:59:34 PM »

You can prove it's the sun and moon causing it by comparing the tide times with the solar and lunar positions - the relationship is obvious.

I was taught that too.  Since scrutinizing and researching the claim more thoroughly (than the commonplace blind acceptance and repetition lamentably required by conditioning through rote under the guise of education), I have found it to be false.

There is no connection to the moon, sun, or any other light in the sky.  The tides frequencies, amplitudes, and tidal node locations (which are fixed) are wholly incompatible with newton's old assumption.

Turns out the moon is not a god which holds sway over the oceans.  That was just particularly stupid mythology, like virtually all of astronomy/cosmology.

There is a small, but measurable slope across the water. If that slope can exist, why can't water also adopt a curved shape?

No one said it couldn't! Water (fluids) can be any shape.  But its surface only has one at rest (of non-miniscule surface area / volume, and under natural conditions - obviously).

I should be clear; the contention is not that fields/forces (such as electrical / magnetic) cannot be used to cause the sustained convex curvature of water's surface (required for the globe model) against its demonstrable natural behavior - it is that no such forces exist in reality to do the job (and they would be exhausted quickly, because it is very costly to perpetually prevent natural law/behavior).  The tides are instances of water pooling/shoaling/moving periodically for reasons we do not understand, and are not tugged by invisible strings attached to the sun and moon (and everything else in conceivable reality) which continue to defy explanation, discovery/measurement, rigorous definition, and generally demonstrable reality.

I suppose I have to ask: what would it take to persuade you that you're wrong?

An important question, that is valuable we all explore and understand/keep fresh our answer(s) to.  In this case, speaking specifically about the curvature of water's surface at rest (not the shape of the whole world, which is another kettle of fish), the answer is science!

This point is all to do with scientific law.  Scientific law is established through rigorous and repeated measurement alone.  It can ONLY be refuted by rigorous and repeated measurement to the contrary.

All measurements that exist of water's surface at rest are flat, level, and horizontal.  That is HOW/WHAT the natural law of hydrostatics is.  This law has stood unchallenged for centuries (perhaps longer), but what is needed to overturn it is inarguable/explicit by the basic definitions of science (and scientific law of which it is in part comprised).

If you're curious to know more, and willing to change your view on new evidence, then read on.

Always, i hope!

Set them wrong and you'll make it considerably worse.

True, though this would be the same with a drift nut that only accommodates the mechanical frictions of the gyro as well.  I may come around on this point, as I do not doubt that the reality of the deflections (varying apparently by latitude) of gyroscopes, pendulums etc.

I'm curious to know what you think is the cause of the coriolis effect

The coriolis effect is a "pseudo-effect" that very few people I have encountered understand properly (due to commonplace miseducation).  ACTUAL deflection, caused in gyroscopes and pendulums, is NOT coriolis.  Coriolis ONLY occurs when there is a separate reference frame which is in relative motion which merely APPEARS to create deflection.  Like the wiki said, it doesn't really exist in the popularly understood way.

I expect you are really asking about the real/actual (not apparent/illusion caused by reference frame) measured deflection, for which the drift nut is needed to compensate (potentially anyhow).  Personally, I am an aetherist. I recognize that light is a pressure wave in a medium, and that medium is called aether.  It is a very fine fluid, and it permeates all of reality.  Even if you could somehow force all the matter we recognize out of a volume, the fine fluid would (and does) remain.  It is my suspicion that the aether is in motion, swirling around us and that this motion very subtly affects/interacts with matter in its turbulence.

FET offers no explanation for any of that - doesn't that make you doubt your FET thinking on some level?

In my view, FET doesn't even exist.  Theory, in a scientific context, does not exist for "flat earth" nor could the shape of the world ever be a theory.

Flat earth research is not really about offering explanation.  Indeed, recognizing/concluding/speculating that the world is flat both answers a question no one asked, and creates mountains more - many of which we thought we'd already answered.  There is nothing wrong with lacking explanation, that is how we always live our lives and must.  The honest answer to most all questions is "we don't know".

I agree that observational and - most especially - experimental evidence must be reconciled at some point with the new revelation (perhaps) that the earth is not spherical - the fact that we have trouble doing so and have many "impossible contradictions" and "lack of explanations" today is unsurprising.  Scientific revolution always goes this way.

I should be clear, if I haven't already, that I am a "globe-skeptic"/"globe denier" not a "flat earther" (if such a thing there be).  We lack the verified and verifiable data to make a determination as to the shape of the entire world, but I have concluded that it is not, and most likely cannot be, spherical.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 27, 2021, 02:45:00 PM »

I've seen this "water at rest is level" argument now several times but I still don't get the point.

That's normal.  This subject is deceptively complex, and much like its apparent central question "what is the true shape of the world" - it all seems so simple at first glance.

So water "at rest" would build a sphere (e.g. water drops).

Only through theory, not empirical science.  When the surface tension forces are able to do so, yes.  At rest, water of significant surface area / volume does not attempt to become a sphere.  This is all demonstrable, which is what and why natural law is.  The "meniscus defense" is irrelevant non-sequitur and a failed attempt (though usually subconscious) to avoid the scientific facts (laws) by trying to distract from them with trivial exception.

Is there anything else which forces water "at rest" to some kind of level?

Not really, however in addition isostatic/isobaric air pressure is distributed and equal - further ensuring the shape of the surface is always flat (in addition to the real cause, which is really weight and the natural law of density separation.  There is no "gravitation" giving matter weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 27, 2021, 03:27:38 AM »

Looking forward to continuing the discussion with you - thoughts on my post, or on @stack's?

Agreed! I most definitely have thoughts!

Very happy to do that, thanks.

Most cool.  I've already destroyed some other threads inadvertently; it's easy to get swept up in conversation!

But we aren't talking about waves here, which fluctuate over a very short time period measured in seconds, but rather tidal rises and falls, which occur over much longer timeframes (around 6 hours between high and low tide). How long a timeframe do you require to call it 'at rest'?

The oceans are never at rest, which is the only place tides occur.  You have an unemperical/unmeasured (and potentially unmeasurable, if non-real for instance) belief that water is always affected by tides (even people, "bloodbended" by the moon), perhaps based on calculation, when it can really only be demonstrated to occur in the ocean. There is some, miniscule, evidence that there are minor variances due to the tides in the great lakes - but if true (which I am personally skeptical of) once again this would only demonstrate that the phenomenon occurs only with certain large bodies of water and not all water in general.

It is my understanding that it's not that water (of significant quantity) has calculable tides that are beyond our precision to measure if interested, it is more an issue of the lack of that tidal effect to measure in lesser volumes and lack of interest.

At rest is, at equilibrium.  Not moving, for most all macro intents and purposes.  It doesn't have to stay at rest any longer than it takes to measure the thing.

But it's not a constant source of error - they are adjusted for latitude, usually on a bench for light aircraft (which can't travel far enough in one flight to generate significant latitude changes), or in older more advanced jets via a cockpit adjustable latitude input control. Why would friction change with latitude?

I agree that friction changing with latitude would be pretty novel/interesting.  If this is true, which so far I have found little support for (that the drift nut is really for anything more than constant sources of "drift"/error caused by friction, rather than anything else it is claimed to be), it could be another manifestation of the effect mistakenly referred to as the coriolis effect which causes real deflection of pendulums/gyroscopes/hydrocompasses etc.

Personally, I find things like the allais effect demonstrate that our interpretation of the cause is evidently flawed.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 26, 2021, 10:10:39 AM »

The wiki isn't flawless, but it does a great job of providing an overview/sense of the disparate and often conflicting views there are out there.

That said, yes - you did miss it :

However, it would be clearly impossible for some of those stars to dip vertically below the horizon.

Only when you misunderstand optics.  Things that become more and more distant from you appear to converge into the horizon (and ultimately become a part of it).  There is more going on than just that however.  The other major factor is refraction cased by the density gradient in our air.  These are what is most responsible for diverting the light away from your eyes, and are the cause of the optical illusion of "setting" (stars, the sun/moon, boats, you name it).

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 25, 2021, 06:24:17 PM »

But if they were moving in large circles above our heads, they would appear as ellipses, would they not, due to perspective, unless the observer happened to be directly underneath the centre of rotation?And if, as you suggest, human ability to perceive the stars was a factor, then one would expect the circles to both shrink and get dimmer as the stars got close to the edge of our perception.

I should have said "circular paths" to cover that possibility.  The honest answer is we don't know much about what we are looking at, or what we are looking at it through (or possibly even ON / a part of a larger structure or aggregation of matter).  When dealing with things so far away (we presume from their apparent lack of parallax), we wouldn't necessarily expect much perspective or brightness warping to occur in any case (largely dependent on how far away or bright they are initially, and how far they actually travel away from the observer during their apparent loops)

The FET arguments around perspective seem very muddled on this subject.

They are as varied and numerous as the stars we are discussing!  Each person has their own understanding, and many (if not all, to some degree) are muddled.

which is why you can only see one of the two from any one latitude on the planet.

You ought to know that that isn't strictly true, but in any case the reason you can only see certain stars is due to the finite limits/bounds of your sight.  It depends on where you are if you can see the eifel tower or not, for the exact same reason.  You can be standing with a clear line of sight to the eifel tower (or any distant object, yes - including stars) and not be able to see it on a perfectly clear day, just as a result of your distance away from it.

This is all entirely consistent with a globe shaped earth whose axis of rotation is aligned with the two respective pole stars.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons people have had it wrong for so very long.  They believed the earth was round, and then when they went to look for supporting evidence of that belief, they found things - like the apparent rotation of the lights in the sky - that seemed to support it.  When you see something is moving, it doesn't necessarily mean you are!  As it turns out, there are ways to test wether you are moving or not.


And those same distant points around an observer in 3 dimensions would form a sphere.  What's your point?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 25, 2021, 03:16:54 PM »
I highly recommend reading the wiki here first.  Most all of your 101 questions have at least some mention there.

The reason for the star trails is that the stars are in motion, and move in large circles above our heads.

Much like you cannot see the town a few miles down the road, the amount of these circles that you can see from any one place on earth as a human is both limited and finite.

This is the reason you can't see the distant town (assuming it is parallel to you), AND the reason you can't see the entire circle that every star makes.

The horizon is always flat, and is an optical illusion (not the physical edge of something, as we were incorrectly taught).  This fact is regardless of the shape of the earth or conceptions thereof.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 23, 2021, 09:47:22 AM »

I think we should create a new thread to discuss your issues with understanding my perspective - rather than clutter up this one.  What do you think?

One of FET's more strange facets

It only appears that way due to your mental block, and your default apologetics.  Of course waves exist, we weren't talking about waves.  In fact, my statement made explicit "at rest".  No, rising and falling tide is not "at rest".  I was deliberate in my phrasing, and you seem to have missed much of what was written.

And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut

That's true, and is one (though not a primary/chief one) of the things I mentioned that is misinterpreted to be caused by the earth's rotation.  The drift nut is there primarily for mechanical reasons (to adjust for constant sources of error, typically caused by friction), and is not what you think it is for.

Hello there!
I'm a middle school teacher, so I mostly work with 14 - 15 year olds.

Welcome!  This is an excellent subject for study at any age, but most everything is easier for the young ;).

If there's any question that you'd like to answer, please feel free to do it!

I will answer them, but please keep in mind that the answers are my own (not that of the greater FES, necessarily) and that I have a lot of practice answering them, so please let me know if you need anymore clarification.

—How do time zones work in a Flat Earth?

The same way.  Time zones are completely arbitrary - we make them up and can use them on any shaped world.

—Are there four seasons in a Flat Earth?

Of course.  Non uniform, but periodic, heating from the sun is the presumed cause of the seasons regardless of the conceptions of the shape of the earth, or on why - specifically - that sun heats the world in such a way as to consistently ensure seasons.

This tautology is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp, but can be useful to muse on - If the world is flat, then everything we observe occurs on a flat earth.  Nothing changes, and it is insane to think it would!

—Does the community have any technical term for the Flat Earth?

There are many terms floating about.  Some refer to an infinite plane, some to a "universal accelerator" that is proposed to push the ground upwards - causing the illusion of gravity and things "falling". Others believe the earth to be a concave sphere which we live on the inside surface of.  The subject itself I refer to by its most accurate description : "flat earth research".

—Do you have "slang words" derived from your theory?

This is a highly contentious subject, and most of the "slangs" that I've seen are deragatories.  However, there are slangs like : atmoplane (referring to the air's measured tendency to stack on top, rather than reinforce the belief of spherical air - for which there is no scientific support.)

—If the Earth is flat, which side is the one we are on, the "correct" side? And what happens with the other side?

We're topside, lol.  No one knows.  There are many speculations, however humanity has only drilled down about 8 miles into the "crust" (and only that one time :().  We have no idea what is down there, and that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

—Do you also think that the other planets are flat?

No, there are no other planets.  All that stuff is star trek fiction.  If it quacks likes science fiction, and you ONLY see it on tv...

—What is the most important evidence that confirms the Earth is flat?

The natural behavior of water, and the laws of hydrostatics, unchallenged for centuries to today, that establish it cannot (due to its fundamental properties) and does not curve in the sustained convex curvature the globe model requires.  Water's surface is only ever flat, level, and horizontal at rest (of non miniscule quantity/surface area) and the believed sphericity of water is in no way a part of empirical science (in fact it would contradict it, and violate many laws - like these in hydrostatics for instance). 

—How do you describe the process of day and night?

Same as the seasons - non uniform, but periodic, heating/lighting from the moving sun.

—Does Earth´s rotation exit?

No.  This is a common misconception.  In fact, the gyroscope was invented to convince people that the world was spherical and rotating.  There is LOT's to discuss on this one - as there are many reasons we came to the wrong conclusion regarding this and incorrectly interpreted phenomena that appear to support it.

—Is gravity the same in a flat Earth as in a round Earth?

It can be.  There are some flat earth researchers who still conceive of a "traditional" gravitation of some kind.

There is a LOT of confusion about gravity, and knowing the history of the term and the science regarding it is extremely valuable.  Through my research I have concluded that newtonian gravity and mass exist only in mathematical equation and have no reality whatsoever.  It is NOT coincidence that they annihilate one another and return to the real and measured weight they began as.

—Why is the Earth flat? (What's its origin?)

The earth appears flat.  Most children think it is flat for this reason (and we know this from asking them before they have "learned better") - because it looks that way.  However, the idea that people used to think the world was flat and then columbus set them straight is complete fiction/propaganda created by the 19th century fiction author of the legend of sleepy hollow and rip van winkle. There is no historical record of any culture/peoples that believed the world was flat.

If you mean, how did a flat earth come to be - then that is a mythological question.  Worth asking and pursuing! But also very important to remember that like most big questions - "why are we here etc." the answers we do have are highly unsatisfying and wildly speculative at absolute best.

—Did you think the same about the Earth being flat when you were a kid?

No, you are not permitted to matriculate if you do not repeat the "inerrant facts" you learn correctly.  That is how rote works.

Thanks in advance!

I look forward to any followup questions you may have!  In my view, flat earth research is minimally about the shape of the world and primarily about the most important, and fundamentally neglected, questions of our age :

1: What do you know?
2: How do you know it (with certainty)?
3: How can you share what you know (and that certainty) with others?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Searching for Flat Earth Model Information
« on: January 13, 2021, 06:23:48 PM »

There is no flat earth model, not in a scientific sense of the word.  There are many potential and proposed ideas for a model, but that is it. I highly recommend the wiki here for a general overview of some of the ideas/concepts around.

Models are a big part of what got us into this mess, and they will not be helping us to dig our way out.  Most flat earth researchers devote their time to more meaningful/useful endaevours than playing with models.

That said, your list of questions is good and you should attempt to answer them for the presumptive model you are playing apologist for!  If done earnestly, it should be enlightening.

Here are the honest answers below, though they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth and are correct regardless of the conceptions thereof.

1. What is the diameter of the Earth?

No one has any idea.  For the earth to have a diameter at all, it must be circular in some fashion.  The basic shape of the world is not known, or measured.  Many people have CALCULATED this believed "diameter" but no one has ever measured or confirmed it in any way.

2. What height above the Earth is the Sun at?

No one has any idea.  You would ALSO need to measure this, but no method has been devised to do so (though there are some that BELIEVE they can through mere calculation with no validation).  Parallax does not work for the lights in the sky (and most all distant objects).

3. At what radius dose the Sun rotate around? (I.e. how far is the Sun rotational path from the center of the earth?)

It is suspected that it moves in an oscillating but mostly circular (possibly many ellipses, like a spiro-graph) path that is roughly the size of the equator.  It varies in height/distance as well as radius over the year, but the average/center/median would seem to be, essentially, the equator.  The distance from the center of the earth (if such a thing exists - humanity has no idea) to the center of the sun (if such a thing exists) is completely unknown and a wildly fanciful question. It has the same answer as 2.

3. What’s the diameter of the Sun?

No one has any idea.  We (humanity) don't know the composition, mechanism, distance, size, exact shape, or nature of the sun.  We teach children we do, but we lie to those poor children - early and often.

4. What height above the Earth is the Moon at?

Also unknown, it would have to be measured first.  Contrary to popular opinion, and massive television advertising to the contrary, nothing like that has ever happened in reality.

5. At what radius dose the Moon rotate around?

It is also thought to be similar to the suns's, albeit with a slightly different speed around the track. 

6. What’s the diameter of the Moon?

See question 3 and replace "sun" with "moon".  The lights in the sky are a complete mystery to us, and rather than convey that honestly to ourselves and children - we decided to lie about it rather than appear uninformed and ignorant. "We don't know" is the honest answer to most questions, and you rarely hear it in the classroom.  "Best guess" religious mythology is inserted in its place and disingenuously and erroneously presented as "science fact".

Flat earth research is largely about identifying, critically evaluating, and ultimately excising belief from knowledge.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  Much of what we were taught, especially as small children, was untrue and much more was religious/philosophical dogma being passed off under the guise of science to children.  This subject is about the following 3 questions, in my view :

1.  What do you know (with certainty)?
2.  How do you know what you know (and how do you derive that certainty)?
3.  How do you share what you know (and that certainty) with others?

If you critically evaluate the questions you BELIEVE you know the answers to (because of conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood), you will find that you do not "know" these things with any certainty - and no one in the world does, they merely parrot them as they are required to, to matriculate.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Are Flat Earther's Afraid of Aliens?
« on: January 09, 2021, 07:08:19 AM »

I suppose I deserved that for invoking the pop-psy fiction of "projection" - in jest I should add.  However, I don't think this one applies to me - do you have an example or is this just one of your go-to derogatories for any "flat earthers"?

We'll be glad to listen to your flat earth theories

The royal we?

I wasn't being ironic.  Things that directly contradict "truths you hold to be self evident", like the sphericity of the world, are extremely pretty wild/alien.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Motivation to believe in flat earth?
« on: January 08, 2021, 04:50:38 PM »

Well, this is the absolute opposite of my base believe. For me the earth is neither unique nor special, it's just special for us because we live there.
I think with such a different base believe it's no surprise to come to different conclustions.

Belief is unwelcome (and across purposes) in knowledge/fact, most of all scientific.  You are, of course, permitted to believe any fantasy you like - but the science is clear and undeniable; the earth is the only place like it and there is ONLY data attesting to this fact.  There are weak statistical arguments that there may be other objects with similar size, but we have no idea what they are / how far away they are / or if they have anything in common with the earth (nor will we in the conceivable future).  The belief you profess is most likely not your own (not organic), it was taught to you and many others through conditioning through rote under the guise of education.  The anti-intellectual/anti-science worship of aliens and sci-fi is required in the religion of scientism.

I fully agree with this opinion.

Then why do you feel it is an opinion? It is a contemporarily and historically demonstrable fact.

Even knowing, that my way of thinking can lead me to a wrong direction sometimes, it's the only one I personally  can rely on.

Yes, and often what we are taught to know is wrong.  This is also an obvious contemporarily and historically demonstrable fact.

I read a lot about experiments related to flat water level.

Cool.  However you should be aware that there is no experiment that has anything to do with the shape of the world.  Experiment is not used in any way to determine the shape of physical objects in reality.  People who talk (and are taught) about experiment this way, don't even know the proper definition - let alone other fundamentals of the scientific method.

This experiments are claimed by both (RE'er and FE'er) to proof their position.

Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition.  It is scientific technical vernacular, and you are using it incorrectly (as were the people you encountered who claimed their mere measurements/observations were experiments).  I agree that pointing to these measurements as proof of the shape of the entire world is deluded and indefensible.

Explanation is based on optical effects

It simply MUST be, otherwise it contradicts their religious worldviews.  That presumptive/default/apologist "explaination" is one of the reasons that globe believers don't critically evaluate their beliefs, or conduct science to get to the bottom of the issue.  They just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat the holy prayer mantra of "refraction" to keep the "bad data" at bay.

However, the natural law of water's surface always being flat at rest easily empirically proves that water does not and (due to its fundamental properties) cannot curve in the sustained convex manner that the globe requires.  The belief that the water does curve (because it simply MUST in the minds of the devout) the way the globe model requires has never been confirmed/measured in empirical science even once in all of human history.  It's not science, it's merely speculation as it always was.  The natural law is inarguable, has stood unchallenged for centuries in hydrostatics, and can be demonstrated by anyone at any time.  The belief in "curv-a-level" and bendy water are just religious dogmas misrepresented as "scientific fact" to children.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Are Flat Earther's Afraid of Aliens?
« on: January 06, 2021, 09:23:17 PM »
I think some flat earthers are more afraid of "alien" ideas than extraterrestrials themselves.

You may be projecting?

The flat earth researchers ARE the ones evaluating/conceiving the "alien" ideas, and the presumptive model proponents aren't even allowed to earnestly evaluate anything that challenges their dogmas.  "Where are the published journal articles?", "Where are the double blind nsf funded trials?" they cry - oblivious that their learned questions are disearnest and the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Motivation to believe in flat earth?
« on: January 06, 2021, 02:41:30 PM »
Hey there! Welcome!

I asked myself, what would be if my highest believe is that the place where I live must be unique and special. Then I probably would not care if everything can be explained, I would acknowledge that we cannot understand everything.

Regardless of the shape of the world, both things are obviously true and must be accepted by the knowledgable/learned.  The earth is indeed unique and special, as is the life that is only found there. We also all must acknowledge that we cannot understand everything (and furthermore, many of the things we currently "understand" are incorrect).

Most discussions I see is about the model - but maybe that's not the most important thing?

It almost certainly is not! There is no alternative model to discuss or evaluate, nor would that be an important thing to begin with.

Does the model convince you? Or is it anything else?

The only model is the presumptive one (the globe model), there are no others - though there are more than a few conceptions (embryonic / fledgling models if you wish) out there to peruse and consider.

Personally, I do not know what shape the entire world is but I have concluded it (most likely) is not and cannot be spherical.  The most straightforward reason is that water's surface at rest (under natural conditions, and of non minuscule surface area) is always flat, level, and horizontal.  It never curves in the sustained convex manner the globe model requires, nor has anyone ever measured it to. Furthermore, whenever water's surface at rest IS measured, it is always flat, level, and horizontal.

The posit that the earth is spherical is little more than an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old.  That is the reason no one knows who determined the world was spherical, when, or how (and the names they do know - like eratosthenes and columbus - are wrong). It's because it never occurred.  It was simply taught as fact, erroneously and disingenuously, to children for millennia.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers - a few words?
« on: January 03, 2021, 09:43:30 AM »

what precisely were you taught about the setting sun or stars as evidence for RE

The optical illusion known as "setting".

The first "proof" I was ever offered was the setting of boats, the sun, and stars. 

It was explained that because the objects disappear from the bottom up, the earth must be curved and that curve must be blocking our view.  Was that not the way you were (initially) taught? How about yourself?

and what precisely made you come to the conclusion that it was bunk?

First was simple logical evaluation.  The statement is flawed and based on circular logic.  I see "insert whatever here" therefore the world is spherical / The world is spherical because I see "insert whatever here".

Second was more rigorous evaluation of the claim (and unvalidated assumptions thereof).

Does the curve get in the way? How can we tell that? Has anyone ever verified that, and if so - how did they do it? Could there be other known reasons why the object merely APPEARS to disappear from the bottom up that do not involve a "hill" being in the way?

I asked questions like these, and did research which yielded surprising results!  No globe proofs withstand much critical scrutiny, which in and of itself is interesting.  The RE proponent knows in their heart that this is because the world is much too large to measure or take pictures of, but their undue certainty is derived from faith - not proof or evidence.  Most people go their whole lives without ever seriously critically evaluating these things, and it is little wonder they are unprepared to defend the globe adequately or prevent themselves being swept up in alternative belief-based/religious worldviews.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How the Earth Moves (Round Earther)
« on: December 27, 2020, 12:12:22 AM »
Hello! My name is Jake, and I am currently working on my PhD in Physics at Purdue University.

Welcome! You sound like you could be ideal to join the discussion and study this subject.

I have [most] always viewed Flat Earthers as ignorant ... [but] perhaps they are just misinformed and/or confused.

That's progress, albeit tiny, in the right direction! Next step, actually considering and objectively evaluating some of these claims in earnest, accepting/recognizing they may well be possibilities and you may well be wrong currently.  I'm sure I don't have to extoll to a physics phd the benefits of devotion to objectivity and the eschewing of bias whenever possible.  Part of that is testing wild (even stupid, to a layman) things, don't you agree?

That being said, it’s understandable that there will be people who question things.

We call those people many names, one of which is scientist.

I respect everyone who has that drive to learn and seek truth.

Earnestly and with the intention to share, yes; I agree.

I would like to cover something interesting I heard when listening to a Flat Earth livestream.

Livestreams. Ooo boy. Fair enough, however you must realize that the views you heard may not be held by anyone here.  The wiki here is an excellent place to begin getting a taste of the multitude of various views and ideas there are out there.

Flat earth research is a slightly different animal/subject than you're formally trained for.  It has no colleges, no textbooks (yet, anyhow), no popes or deans. Flat earth researchers are mostly unaffiliated individuals with, often, wildly differing approaches, views, and conclusions on the subject. Autodidacticism is not optional, and strong independent research skills are required - which sadly, few have.  You, I suspect - ought to have them in some abundance, at least the research ability.

I'm quite interested to hear your perspectives, seeing as gravitation (as taught and understood by the vast majority) is often erroneously seen as a "logical" reason the earth couldn't possibly be any other shape than the one they learned as children.  Even if the earth was a sphere because gravity is real, or (were it true) because nature prefers spheres; The earth (like all physical objects) can only be determined to be spherical one way, and it isn't through persuasive argument (gum flapping) while sitting around. It's by rigorous and repeated measurement alone.

As I am writing my thesis on gravitation, I thought I might answer this question for you all in a way anyone can understand!

Cool.  There is a big difference between knowing something extremely well and being able to share it with others, especially uninitiated/novices.  I'm not sure how many people here are struggling with the concept of reference frames, but I know it is a lot.

Please note, I am going to do my best to explain this while relating to the beliefs of a Flat Earther and will omit as much math as I can.

Like most subjects, belief is across purposes.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  The "best" researchers in this subject seek to know, and many - like myself (and possibly you as well?) also seek to identify and eliminate belief (a major source for bias) whenever possible.

One thing that the Flat Earthers agree on

"Flat earther" is more or less a derogatory that very few self-ascribe to.  There is no consensus, or uniformity.  There are even some who speculate that the world IS spherical, but much larger than we assume - as well as those that conclude (and sometimes measure!) the earth to be an inverted sphere that we live on the inside surface of.  There is virtually nothing that every one of the individual researchers agree on, even with only minor majority, except perhaps that our conceptions of the worlds shape are or, at least, may be wrong.

Many flat earth researchers speculate that the planets are also flat, but this is due to rationalization/cognitive dissonance of remnant astronomical/cosmological mythology they haven't totally identified and excised (hopefully yet!).  Many more speculate/deduce/conclude that there are no planets at all the way we and hollywood conceive and depict them.

Going on this same line of thought, we know that black holes exist because of the picture we have taken of one!

Ever wonder why that picture was so hyped? Do you know/ have a sense of how much it costs to hype a "picture" like that across the media channels in such a ubiquitous way?  You, the curious scientist, may feel - of course that is front page news! But the rest of us, very much don't.  Why was it so important to show these people this "picture"?  Also, this is not the first "picture" touted of a black hole that made the rounds in a major way through the media outlets.  There is no solid evidence that black holes do or can exist.  I side with einstein on this one, and a select few other things.

then it must also be possible that there must be

Cool phrasing. It sounds like a provisional but is an absolute in disguise! It's possible that there must be - that's tasty rhetoric.

We can (and have) actually physically see that light can be manipulated by gravity.

No, this is a mistake/lie that they teach us.  There is no experimental validation (scientific support) of that statement whatsoever. Experimentally, light's path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.  You may argue pedantically and irrelevantly for diffraction, but please do not unless you feel you must.

This attraction must therefore be due to the object at the center of the galaxy.

Incorrect.  What you have there is merely a speculative hypothesis (at best), which now needs experimental validation or refutation.  This is, fundamentally, why astronomy is largely pseudoscience mythology and not science.  It (largely) cannot and does not adhere to the scientific method, and ergo is not a part of science.

We believe this to be a supermassive black hole

Correct!  But don't you know that belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific?  Why are you believing in things, and why are small children (most who will never be astronomers) being taught these beliefs as "facts" under the guise of science when they are not?

I tried my best to explain this in a way Flat Earthers could understand, sorry if some things seem confusing, it’s difficult to explain these things without math.

You'll be more effective if you answer questions you are asked, address/respond to content found here (not a random podcast with some people claiming - or you have mistaken - to speak for "flat earthers"), or pipe in to an existing conversation with a clarification / your perspective if you think it edifying and/or clarifying.

There is much I wish to discuss with you, on the other hand - but like you on the other side of the keyboard I simply do not know where to begin.  Talk of gravitational lensing and black holes being a hoax is fun, and important, but somewhat tangential to the discussion at hand.  At the end of the day it is a research challenge.  Can you validate the existence of either of those things scientifically/experimentally, and can anyone? The answer to both questions is no, but you may not have put the research hours in to determine that adequately for yourself yet.

I think any discussion about science should start out with some agreement on functional definition of terms for the purposes of the discussion.  I find that the working definitions for science, scientific method, hypothesis, and experiment are at the core of science and discussion thereof.  I have found that most people, including many scientists, have incorrect or broken (not working) definitions and so I think we should start here - assuming you are interested in discussing this topic!

What are your (personal/working) definitions for the following words? I will include my, working/functional, definitions.

Science : That which adheres rigorously to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law which is established solely through rigorous and repeated measurement), and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces.

Scientific Method : (has many fringes, but the bones are)
1. Observe a phenomenon.
2. Hypothesize a cause for the observed phenomenon.
3. Experimentally validate, invalidate, or neither (when it really borks) the hypothesis.

Hypothesis : (There are MANY more criteria here for a VALID hypothesis, but this is the core)

A speculation on the cause of an observed phenomenon and the expected influence of manipulating that cause on the observed phenomenon for the sole purpose of being experimentally validated/refuted (ideally).

Experiment :

A procedure which validates or invalidates a hypothesis by establishing a causal link (ideally) between a hypothesized cause/IV/Independent Variable that you manipulate and the hypothesized effect/DV/Dependent Variable that you only monitor.

I have found that with the correct working definitions you can begin to discern science from pseudoscience (including the belief mentioned above) masquerading as it.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Anime?
« on: December 26, 2020, 06:15:21 PM »
I cannot second made in abyss enough.  It's great; a bitter allegorical pill coated in a thin anime trope facade.  The only trouble is it is unfinished, and the second season is still a long way off (suffering for years now).

I also enjoyed soul eater for various reasons - probably chiefly because I watched dbz as a kid.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers - a few words?
« on: December 25, 2020, 03:44:43 AM »
At the start of the podcast, me and my co-host were not convinced

Not convinced of what? What was the podcast about if not the views of flat earth researchers?

but I was wondering if anyone in here could tell me why they believe the earth is flat and how you began your journey as a flat earther?

I can't speak for anyone but myself - however this subject/topic, like most all of them, is hindered by belief.

Many flat earth researchers make a critical distinction between belief and knowledge.  The earnest ones that I have encountered accept and recognize that no one has the verified and verifiable data to determine the shape of the entire world.  As such, many consider themselves (as I do) to be globe skeptics or globe deniers.  We have evidence that the earth is not spherical, and cannot be, but we do not know the shape of the entire thing.

We (most) ALL start with the indoctrinated belief, a dogma, that the world is round.  The belief is that the world is round (spherical), and it is millennia old.

Ideally, if one is endeavoring to research objectively AND successful, once you become a flat earth researcher your days of believing the world is round, flat, or any other shape are over.  Sadly, this is often not the case and many waft helplessly (understandably) from one belief to another with habitual/characteristic zealotry and fervence.

I began noodling this topic casually after learning about the scourge of scientism.  I began more diligent research when I discovered that the proof I was taught (as a child) was bunk (setting sun/boat/stars illusion).

Most all of the "proofs" that exist, and have ever existed, supporting the globe belief/posit are only effective at (and likely designed for) fooling children. They don't bare critical scrutiny, and it is not coincidence we do not hear or talk about them except for in that classroom as children.

I read up on The Bedford Level Experiment, and the society itself and if I'm being honest, I don't think it matters if the Earth was flat or not

That is the way most people feel! Because the shape of the world is inconsequential to everyday (i.e. terrestrial) life (including science), it is very easy to feel that it simply doesn't matter.

However, it might be more consequential to everyday life if, for one hypothetical instance of many, there was more land than we have been told there is...  Don't you agree?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 17, 2020, 02:56:11 PM »

Thank you for your responses! I owe you all responses in kind - that will be forthcoming - but I thought this response to the OP ought come first.


I just need some way to categorize people! :)

You really don't, and you reduce/dehumanize them attempting to do so.  If you MUST put the people into stifling little boxes, at least try your best to make them fit.

I propose GEP (globe earth proponent) and GED/GES (globe earth denier / globe earth skeptic) or perhaps REP and RED/RES.

We should all humbly admit our own bias

It is harder than simply "admitting", sadly.  First you must make the implicit explicit, then evaluate it objectively (ALSO no small feat), THEN you have the chance to possibly "humbly admit" your recognized (the tricky bit) bias.

We should earnestly and diligently try to find our own biases and help each other to point out the ones we inevitably miss!  There is no shame in recogizing our subjective nature and great harm in denying it.  We ought to be able to point out/criticize one anothers biases and offer thanks for the service.

Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims.

And just like that, a long meandering tangential thread returns to its central topic! The burden of proof falls on the claimant.  We all need to defend, explain, and support our positions - however citing published journal articles (nor any other particular source) is not required to do that.

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  In any case, strong independent research skills are vital and required in this subject (in truth, they are vital for all subjects and shamefully neglected by most)

There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth.

Endless, yes. But that's only in THINKING about the shape of the earth.  Actually determining it only has the one way - rigorous and repeated measurement (of the world, not the sky or any other damned thing that is NOT the world)!

It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring.

Not when it is!  When the line of thinking/inquiry IS in fact red herring - letting others know is extremely productive - if only in saving time from being wasted.

it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked.

I suspect it is somewhere around 30.  In england and other "friendly" european nations, the percentage is higher - around or above 50.

The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence.

The longer you live the better you will likely learn/internalize that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  In any case, the thomas baron "incident" is not a sole example demonstrating "fishy" things surrounding apollo.

There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful.

Your bias rears its ugly head.  There are methods to ESTIMATE - not answer nor determine.

In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence".  You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

But you do not know it is a rat.

Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.

It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example.  There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.

Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo.  "Double blind", that is a rat.  I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.

ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith.  No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible.  It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".

When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.

Societal Opression

If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.

One of the first things we learn as young children is the lie that our primitive ancestors thought the world was flat and were afraid to fall off the edge if they sailed too far.  We are conditioned to mock and deride anyone who questions our modern "advanced wisdom" of the shape of the earth (or most anything else) from a shamefully tender age.  This is not coincidence, and is the reason there is the opposite of "welcoming" and consideration/evaluation for this subject.

Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!

I hope that you are right and there are those with the bravery and conviction to risk all for the benefit of mankind - however my experience with reality (including academia) has been distinctly less grandiose.  People generally do what the money tells them to because they are too poor to object.

If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.

There are many such observations (NOT experiments, as we have discussed) that can and have been made in the past.  I will leave the puzzle of why they are not replicated to you.  Personally, I think discovery happens wherever you look thoroughly, and it is through philosophy/creation myth that we influence where/how to look and the bounds on what can be hoped to be found.  The reason the research groups don't take a chance on measuring the shape of the world rigorously (which would almost certainly garner them some attention!), is because their creation myth/philosophy/world view informs them there is no need to.

But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence.

The evidence is in every primary school in the world.  As I explained, it is one of the first things all students learn.

since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech.

Does it though? (he asks, knowingly)

Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you?

I can direct you to many threads containing demonstration/examples of common/typical responses to flat earth research.  Dissent is not tolerated, and many people froth at the mouth as a result of their conditioning to that effect through rote under the guise of education.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: November 29, 2020, 04:13:05 PM »
No "global" hoax or conspiracy is required for humanity to be stupid and wrong as it always is.

The assumption that the earth was spherical was first posited by someone that sat on their ass (while diddling their boy slaves, undoubtedly) and made it up over 2000 years ago.  It shouldn't cause any shock that they were wrong (or at least easily/likely could be), and only minor shock at the fact that prior to nasa et al (if you believe everything you see on tv) that the assumption had never been validated by anyone, ever.

There is still a lot of (indoctrination towards) ancient greek worship about (and the pedophilia they so adored...). It is the foundation of fraternities and many other "traditions" and is generally rife within "academia".  One can't help but wonder what else about the world might be different if they had spent less time fondling, admiring, and worshipping each others balls thousands of years ago (and things they imagined resembled them with no adequate reasons or reasoning)

Perhaps we were too busy venerating/idolizing instead of scrutinizing.  One of the MANY flaws of the modernists is they stupidly think that there is no reason to study the past.  The foundations of science are back there, and what egregious flaw (that we have grandfathered in, due to greek ball worship and other things) is inevitably there will only be found through rigorous scrutiny/critical evaluation.

The existence of a hoax, or not, is irrelevant to the shape of the earth, and to determining it with certainty.  Discussion of conspiracy and hoax, although entertaining at times, is red herring and distraction from the real topic at hand.

Speaking of which, back to the OP's question.

IF there were a conspiracy to hide the true shape of their world from "average citizens/employees/peasants" it would likely be for the purposes of warfare and domination.

For example, we know now that the american continent was well known by the aristocracy in europe for centuries (if not millennia) before columbus, was likely the source of the copper from the bronze age, and was on many of their maps.

It was very important to them to lie to their slaves/employees/citizens/peasants to stop them from leaving to try and have a better lot in life (or at least the possibility for one).

In war, there are really only two things - topography and subterfuge, and bad maps tick both boxes in a major way.

What if there were somewhere better to go? Just hypothetically of course ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >