if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

since science is fake, and since not a single one of you guys can create a computer from scratch, do you believe there is a global conspiracy to hide the wizards who create computers?

maybe there is a whole underground world of faeries, orcs, dragons and other magical beasts that they hide from you, to make science look legit.

if not for science, who else can make all these computers?

Science isn't fake. You are just wrong.

I can (and have in my undergrad) created a computer from scratch. Well, I had the logic gates and/or burnable chips and a breadboard.

I'm laughing you think such a task is so beyond reach.

Science isn't fake. You are just wrong.

I can (and have in my undergrad) created a computer from scratch. Well, I had the logic gates and/or burnable chips and a breadboard.

I'm laughing you think such a task is so beyond reach.

really? you're probably one of these wizards that the global conspiracy has hidden from us

such a lackluster reply dear wizard
why don't you show us a video where you build a computer from raw metal and plastic?
show us every step of your magical power, because you know, claims are one thing, proofs are an entirely different thing

and how can science not be fake if it says the earth is not flat?

Nobody can build a modern computer from scratch. Fabricating integrated circuit chips requires dozens of highly-specialized steps, performed in a series of factories each managed by experts in their own particular step of the process. From locating deposits of silicon of sufficient quality, to mining, refining, purifying, crystalizing, slicing, and etching, each of those steps is done by people who lack the knowledge to perform any of the others.

Assembling a computer from components available to consumers is a trivial matter for those with the needed skills. I know a number of people who can do it, though these days they're going to buy a pre-assembled motherboard, power supply, storage unit (HD or SSD), etc., and assemble them, because that's cheaper than assembling each of those components from their respective components.

Science gives us the knowledge to create technology, which in turn gives us computers and all the other marvels of the modern world. Including the GPS system in every smartphone, that connects to the swarm of satellites which would be impossible on a flat Earth. If you own a smartphone you can download Google Maps, or any of a number of similar apps, and have it show you exactly where on the Earth you are, to a precision of several tens of meters. And all because of science, technology, and satellites.

You can also have it show you the distance (via road or direct flight) between any two points on the Earth, and you can easily verify that these distances are compatible with a round Earth, not a flat one. And if you are a pilot and have an airplane, you can verify these distances.

He didn't say anything about a modern computer. Its a fairly typical task for a computer engineering student senior. You start by designing your own logic gates, move up to something like a coke machine or a calculator and end with a simple computer often using programmable chips at that point now that they know you can do it the hard way.

If I had a gun to my head I could probably make a really really simple more modern computer. I wouldn't want to. I recall that lab being a particular pita.

Obviously I'm assuming some materials are readily available.

He didn't say anything about a modern computer. Its a fairly typical task for a computer engineering student senior. You start by designing your own logic gates, move up to something like a coke machine or a calculator and end with a simple computer often using programmable chips at that point now that they know you can do it the hard way.

If I had a gun to my head I could probably make a really really simple more modern computer. I wouldn't want to. I recall that lab being a particular pita.

Obviously I'm assuming some materials are readily available.

My point was just that he said making it from scratch. Nobody can make anything of our modern world from scratch. Pretty much everything we use is made in a number of steps so specialized that people only know how to do their one small step in the process.

Yeah, I assumed he wasn't a complete moron and didn't mean from literal scratch going out and mining metal like some sort of real life Minecraft. You of course are right; I am reminded of that interview about what goes into making a pencil by that philosopher (I think? memory isn't there.)

That said, a simple mechanical calculator I would think doable from scratch scratch if allowed to use tools.


Obviously there's not a lot of content to talk about here. He seems to be conflating technology and science existing with peoples world-views in a very liberal fashion.

My point was just that he said making it from scratch. Nobody can make anything of our modern world from scratch. Pretty much everything we use is made in a number of steps so specialized that people only know how to do their one small step in the process.

This comes down to the semantic game of what it means by making something "from scratch".

e.g. consider a cake.
Obviously buying a cake wouldn't count.
But what about making it from a cake mix? Does that count? For most people - no, you didn't make the mix, you just bought it and mixed it together.
What about making it from flour and butter and so on? For most people, yes.
But you didn't make the flour or the butter.
Surely to make it from scratch you need to have made them?
So using wheat to make your own flour and milk to make your own butter? Nope, still not good enough, you didn't make that wheat or milk.
So do we need to grow our own wheat? Well you still started with those seeds. You need to make them as well.
And eventually you get down to the basic matter, well did you make that? No.
So you need to make your own matter from nothing to make it from scratch.

So to make a cake from scratch, is it fine to use basic ingredients, or do you need to make your own universe?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 25, 2025, 07:44:59 AM

My point was just that he said making it from scratch. Nobody can make anything of our modern world from scratch. Pretty much everything we use is made in a number of steps so specialized that people only know how to do their one small step in the process.

This comes down to the semantic game of what it means by making something "from scratch".

e.g. consider a cake.
Obviously buying a cake wouldn't count.
But what about making it from a cake mix? Does that count? For most people - no, you didn't make the mix, you just bought it and mixed it together.
What about making it from flour and butter and so on? For most people, yes.
But you didn't make the flour or the butter.
Surely to make it from scratch you need to have made them?
So using wheat to make your own flour and milk to make your own butter? Nope, still not good enough, you didn't make that wheat or milk.
So do we need to grow our own wheat? Well you still started with those seeds. You need to make them as well.
And eventually you get down to the basic matter, well did you make that? No.
So you need to make your own matter from nothing to make it from scratch.

So to make a cake from scratch, is it fine to use basic ingredients, or do you need to make your own universe?

Exactly, well said.

And yet the point Cobra was making in the OP is that the computers we are all using to post on this forum, or the tablets or smartphones, are the result of science; and that to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science, with most flat-earthers going so far as to deny that rockets carry people into Earth orbit on a regular basis.

The bit about nobody being able to make a computer from scratch was, as I take it, to emphasize the foundational necessity of science in the process. Plenty of people can assemble a computer from store-bought parts, but without science, those components could not have been made.

Admittedly, when we speak of making something "from scratch," the term must always be understood in context and will mean different things in different contexts. But the point here is that in our present world, science is a self-evident reality, and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

And yet the point Cobra was making in the OP is that the computers we are all using to post on this forum, or the tablets or smartphones, are the result of science; and that to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science, with most flat-earthers going so far as to deny that rockets carry people into Earth orbit on a regular basis.

The bit about nobody being able to make a computer from scratch was, as I take it, to emphasize the foundational necessity of science in the process. Plenty of people can assemble a computer from store-bought parts, but without science, those components could not have been made.

Admittedly, when we speak of making something "from scratch," the term must always be understood in context and will mean different things in different contexts. But the point here is that in our present world, science is a self-evident reality, and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

I think its a weak and unsupported argument though based on fallacy. He's basically strung together a false dilemma and a nonsequitur. A false dilemma as there are not only two choices (all of science or none of it); in reality people can (and many scientists themselves do) accept parts of scientific information while rejecting others. There's no logical basis to his claim. Secondly its nonsequitur because the idea that rejecting the earth is round necessitates rejecting computers just doesn't follow directly or even indirectly. In fact, its pretty clearly disproven by example just by him being here presenting his argument to us. So for a third, its self defeating.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 25, 2025, 05:36:43 PM

And yet the point Cobra was making in the OP is that the computers we are all using to post on this forum, or the tablets or smartphones, are the result of science; and that to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science, with most flat-earthers going so far as to deny that rockets carry people into Earth orbit on a regular basis.

The bit about nobody being able to make a computer from scratch was, as I take it, to emphasize the foundational necessity of science in the process. Plenty of people can assemble a computer from store-bought parts, but without science, those components could not have been made.

Admittedly, when we speak of making something "from scratch," the term must always be understood in context and will mean different things in different contexts. But the point here is that in our present world, science is a self-evident reality, and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

I think its a weak and unsupported argument though based on fallacy. He's basically strung together a false dilemma and a nonsequitur. A false dilemma as there are not only two choices (all of science or none of it); in reality people can (and many scientists themselves do) accept parts of scientific information while rejecting others. There's no logical basis to his claim. Secondly its nonsequitur because the idea that rejecting the earth is round necessitates rejecting computers just doesn't follow directly or even indirectly. In fact, its pretty clearly disproven by example just by him being here presenting his argument to us. So for a third, its self defeating.

Cobra's argument may have been poorly stated, but there are no scientists in any relevant field (geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc.) who believe the Earth is flat. There may be three or four people who work in completely unrelated fields of science who are so emotionally tied to their religion that they reject the rest of science, but nobody who understands and accepts the validity of the scientific method, or who honestly looks at the available evidence without making the absurd claim that it's all faked, would conclude that the Earth is flat.

In order to believe that the Earth is flat you need to either ignore all the evidence, or claim that there is a super-massive, world-wide conspiracy, involving tens or hundreds of millions of people, creating literally millions of pieces of flawless fake evidence.

to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science

No. You just need to reject the carefully cherry picked parts which show Earth is round.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 25, 2025, 05:36:43 PM

to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science

No. You just need to reject the carefully cherry picked parts which show Earth is round.

You would need to reject science itself. That is, you'd need to reject the scientific method, or else just claim that basically every scientist alive is part of a global conspiracy which none of them have any incentive to be a part of.

Quote from: Username on April 26, 2025, 03:51:42 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 25, 2025, 05:36:43 PM

And yet the point Cobra was making in the OP is that the computers we are all using to post on this forum, or the tablets or smartphones, are the result of science; and that to believe the Earth is flat you need to reject the entirety of science, with most flat-earthers going so far as to deny that rockets carry people into Earth orbit on a regular basis.

The bit about nobody being able to make a computer from scratch was, as I take it, to emphasize the foundational necessity of science in the process. Plenty of people can assemble a computer from store-bought parts, but without science, those components could not have been made.

Admittedly, when we speak of making something "from scratch," the term must always be understood in context and will mean different things in different contexts. But the point here is that in our present world, science is a self-evident reality, and is incompatible with a flat Earth.

I think its a weak and unsupported argument though based on fallacy. He's basically strung together a false dilemma and a nonsequitur. A false dilemma as there are not only two choices (all of science or none of it); in reality people can (and many scientists themselves do) accept parts of scientific information while rejecting others. There's no logical basis to his claim. Secondly its nonsequitur because the idea that rejecting the earth is round necessitates rejecting computers just doesn't follow directly or even indirectly. In fact, its pretty clearly disproven by example just by him being here presenting his argument to us. So for a third, its self defeating.

Cobra's argument may have been poorly stated, but there are no scientists in any relevant field (geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, etc.) who believe the Earth is flat. There may be three or four people who work in completely unrelated fields of science who are so emotionally tied to their religion that they reject the rest of science, but nobody who understands and accepts the validity of the scientific method, or who honestly looks at the available evidence without making the absurd claim that it's all faked, would conclude that the Earth is flat.

I think that's pretty patently ridiculous take that is a bit short sighted. You'd have a hard time if you tried to justify your claims there. Are you really saying there aren't, for example, a large amount of Christian scientists that dismiss the big bang? MOND physicists that reject relativity and newton dynamics? Or dark matter?

Hell, I personally studied under a physicist that rejects that aether doesn't exist (though he uses different verbage to avoid people crying about it) and uses it to explain the redshift.

Your restatement of his argument does nothing to address that its logically flawed.

In order to believe that the Earth is flat you need to either ignore all the evidence, or claim that there is a super-massive, world-wide conspiracy, involving tens or hundreds of millions of people, creating literally millions of pieces of flawless fake evidence.

Interesting, because I believe in a flat earth, reject no evidence that is valid, and believe in no massive world wide conspiracy. So we can go ahead and add another disproof by example to our list of reasons why the argument is nonsense.

You would need to reject science itself. That is, you'd need to reject the scientific method, or else just claim that basically every scientist alive is part of a global conspiracy which none of them have any incentive to be a part of.

No, you can just reject and ignore the evidence that shows Earth is round.
FEers do it all the time, claiming evidence that shows they are wrong is fake, and refusing to perform the experiments themselves, or think about things that show their model doesn't work.
That doesn't require you to reject all of science, nor the scientific method.

Interesting, because I believe in a flat earth, reject no evidence that is valid, ...

That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: You merely claim that all the massive quantity of evidence for a round Earth is "not valid."

Like the thousands of satellites going around the Earth all the time, providing weather data, communications, and global positioning data to anybody with a smartphone or a NAV system in their car.

Like all the people who have spent a season working in any of the many research stations in Antarctica (operated not by NASA but by research institutes in various nations).

Like the phases of the Moon, which can only happen if the Moon is a round body orbiting a round Earth, as both together go around the sun. Or the entire science of astronomy itself.

Smartphones and Nav systems work, but satellites are not necessary for their operation. I have no idea why you would claim their operation is solely dependent on the existence of satellites. Astronomy is a pseudoscience.

Interesting, because I believe in a flat earth, reject no evidence that is valid…

That’s because, as an FE’er, you are obligated to believe that there isn’t any valid evidence that the earth is round.

Quote from: Username on April 27, 2025, 06:03:04 PM

Interesting, because I believe in a flat earth, reject no evidence that is valid, ...

That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: You merely claim that all the massive quantity of evidence for a round Earth is "not valid."

Like the thousands of satellites going around the Earth all the time, providing weather data, communications, and global positioning data to anybody with a smartphone or a NAV system in their car.

Like all the people who have spent a season working in any of the many research stations in Antarctica (operated not by NASA but by research institutes in various nations).

Like the phases of the Moon, which can only happen if the Moon is a round body orbiting a round Earth, as both together go around the sun. Or the entire science of astronomy itself.

I do no such thing. You've somehow managed to present a strawman in the same breath as claiming I'm presenting a no true scotsman.

I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. I have yet to see one argument or evidence against it that is compelling in the slightest. The satellites you attempt to use to disprove my beliefs in fact can provide proof for it as many are in inertial frames of reference.

That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: You merely claim that all the massive quantity of evidence for a round Earth is "not valid."

No, he just plays semantic games where he pretends a round Earth is flat.

I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. I have yet to see one argument or evidence against it that is compelling in the slightest. The satellites you attempt to use to disprove my beliefs in fact can provide proof for it as many are in inertial frames of reference.

Except they don't, as using that it is clear that Earth's surface is not a geodesic, and standing on it is not an inertial frame of reference.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 28, 2025, 07:41:33 PM

That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: You merely claim that all the massive quantity of evidence for a round Earth is "not valid."

No, he just plays semantic games where he pretends a round Earth is flat.

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 11:59:23 AM

I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. I have yet to see one argument or evidence against it that is compelling in the slightest. The satellites you attempt to use to disprove my beliefs in fact can provide proof for it as many are in inertial frames of reference.

Except they don't, as using that it is clear that Earth's surface is not a geodesic, and standing on it is not an inertial frame of reference.

I never claimed standing on the surface of the earth was an inertial frame of reference. In fact, my statement above implies the exact opposite. When you make statements like that it becomes very obvious to everyone that the issue isn't that you disagree with my work; its that you fail to understand it.

The interpretation of the mathematics behind a theory is not "semantic" games in any way that it should be dismissed out of hand because you don't like it and can't argue against it.


"Provide a FE theory coherent with all re evidence."

"Okay, that has never been a thing in science, for any paradigm shift ever in science (for example see: Copernicus or Galileo), but here you go"

**FINGERS IN EARS** NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH

The truth of the matter is I should be lauded as the most accurate scientist ever.

I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. I have yet to see one argument or evidence against it that is compelling in the slightest.

Do you mean like the argument that says that mass warps spacetime causing the phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity (or gravitation if you want to be pedantic), and that the warping of spacetime would cause a body of sufficient mass to collapse into a roughly spherical form?  And before you bring up the flat earth as an infinite plane, you would need to provide some evidence that an infinite plane can, let alone does, exist as a physical object.

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 11:59:23 AM

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

No, because the mass of the satellite would warp spacetime to generate its own gravitational field, even if it's just a micro-gravity environment like on the iSS.  Also, depending on the planet's rotation, the satellite could feel the effects of frame dragging.

Quality post.

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 04:37:46 PM

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

No, because the mass of the satellite would warp spacetime to generate its own gravitational field, even if it's just a micro-gravity environment like on the iSS.  Also, depending on the planet's rotation, the satellite could feel the effects of frame dragging.

Let's not get into the weeds, I'm talking about a thought experiment; we aren't engineering a gyroscope for satellite gimbals. In the wabe a bit eh? Yes, there's a way lot before it, and a way lot after it, but let's not start with rotating reference frames and microgravity. Don't you think?

Are you at least going to consider the delicate balance between the gravitational attraction of terra and the tangential speed (orbital velocity) required for said 'perfect' orbit?

If you'd like the teach the class, don't let me stop ya. I'm sure you've been around long enough you know as much as I do.