The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Wolvaccine on July 11, 2020, 05:19:02 AM
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
-
On it!
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
Correction thinking lemmings are mindless is actually falling for fake news. Lemmings jumping off a cliff was a hoax.
Correction count:1
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
We know the world is round because we ask questions.
Correction count: 2
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Yes, many people don't bother think about what they see and some of way-out hypotheses like the Earth's being flat can make person think.
But then flat-Earthers destroy all that by claim contrary evidence must be fake/CGI planted by "the Conspiracy :o"!
Go figure!
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Yes, many people don't bother think about what they see and some of way-out hypotheses like the Earth's being flat can make person think.
But then flat-Earthers destroy all that by claim contrary evidence must be fake/CGI planted by "the Conspiracy :o"!
Go figure!
This guy gets it 8)
But no need to generalise all flat earthers though. I mean the nit wits on YouTube I'd agree with you on. But some here are in a whole other league of their own 8)
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Yes, many people don't bother think about what they see and some of way-out hypotheses like the Earth's being flat can make person think.
But then flat-Earthers destroy all that by claim contrary evidence must be fake/CGI planted by "the Conspiracy :o"!
Go figure!
This guy gets it 8)
But no need to generalise all flat earthers though. I mean the nit wits on YouTube I'd agree with you on. But some here are in a whole other league of their own 8)
Of course I've known and said much before and I could name probably three who do have their own "storylines.".
-
Haha!
I love They Live, and it’s a truly terrible example of the point you are trying to make.
Our boy Roddy here, never questions a damn thing. He didn’t make the glasses, he doesn’t know how they are supposed to work. He just stumbles on something showing him an alternative version of the world, and blindly accepts his new reality without reservation.
It never once occurs to him that it might be the glasses made in some back alley lab making him see shit that’s not there, instead of the other way round. It never crosses his mind that he might have been taken in by a big hoax perpetuated by arseholes before he starts going postal.
Of course it’s a film and he’s the protagonist, so it’s all good. The far more likely explanation that it’s all smoke and mirrors feeding his paranoia isn’t even considered.
And it’s the same sentiment that flat earth YouTube videos prey off. Everyone wants to be on the side of the Rebel Alliance, or the Fellowship of the Ring, or Neo, or whatever. But what if you actually aren’t that special? What if the thing you convinced yourself was the truth, was just a load of nonsense?
If you really want to question things and be a proper sceptic, you’re better off following how scientists question things. Questions like “what don’t I understand about this?” and “how might my experiment be flawed?”
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
The video shows what happened when Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo and others saw that the Earth actually isn't fixed in place as Dogma (Church)claimed.
And the Chursh did just what the aliens in the movie did. Blocked the general info.
Giordano Bruno was burned at stake.
Galileo was sentenced to home prison for showing that the Earth is not static, and exiting the court room he still says "eppur si muove".
What could hold our planet in place?
Especially when the Sun and all outer planets are so much bigger (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune).
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
So pray tell everyone what is it you are seeing through your distortion free glasses. What revelations do you have that you can share with us?
-
“I'm giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses, or start eating that trashcan.”
Ah, the struggle to wake people up to da troof. So much more entertaining than the red pill/blue pill meme.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
Classic. Flat earthers devoid of any real proof have to resort to using fiction to make a point, be it a fictional one!
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world. Except we don't need fancy glasses. Just an enlightened mind.
The rest of you are no better than mindless lemmings. Just do as your told and don't ask questions
Classic. Flat earthers devoid of any real proof have to resort to using fiction to make a point, be it a fictional one!
You guys never heard of examples to make a point? I'm not talking about the entire movie of 'they live' or suggesting it's premise is true
I am talking about how flat earthers see the world differently ie for what it really is compared to indoctrinated round earthers who see it as they are told to see it
-
I am talking about how flat earthers see the world differently ie for what it really is compared to indoctrinated round earthers who see it as they are told to see it
You are joking, I hope?
What "indoctrinated round earthers" here "see it as they are told to see it"?
And who tells them "how to see the world"?
Flat Earthers would never dream up a silly flat Earth with Antarctica as a "forbidden" ring continent individually!
Flat Earthers are more indoctrinated than anyone!
-
You guys never heard of examples to make a point? I'm not talking about the entire movie of 'they live' or suggesting it's premise is true
I am talking about how flat earthers see the world differently ie for what it really is compared to indoctrinated round earthers who see it as they are told to see it
Then it’s a bad example to make a bad point.
The heroes in They Live don’t “see the world differently”, they discover the nefarious lie and wage guerrilla warfare against those running the show. What’s the real world equivalent of that? Blowing up a university astronomy department?
Without any of basic premise of the film, what does your example even mean?
Your lines about “indoctrination” and how we “don’t ask questions” are just the usual unthinking bollocks. Science and science education is all about asking questions. Understanding science is about knowing what questions were asked and how people came to the conclusions they did.
That’s how society got the technology for you to spread your condensing crap about us being “mindless”.
Edit: Misread something.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
In essence what you are saying is truth to a flat earther is irrelevant as it can change on a daily basis
How does your flat earth free thinking, today, explain the difference in the photographs of the moon in the example I mentioned earlier? Would you have a different explanation next week?
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
In essence what you are saying is truth to a flat earther is irrelevant as it can change on a daily basis
How does your flat earth free thinking, today, explain the difference in the photographs of the moon in the example I mentioned earlier? Would you have a different explanation next week?
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
-
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
It does?
A book like Samuel Birley Rowbotham's "Earth is not a Globe" or "Zetetic Cosmology" seems to lock in flat Earth model ideas.
This book set the basis of most common flat Earth "model" still used today!
All your talk "free thinking" and "the truth" is meaningless when discussing the shape of a huge solid object like the Earth.
The Earth is the shape it is and it is not a matter of personal choice whatever you might think!
That can only be determined by evidence gained by observation and experiment but that evidence has accumulated over a couple of millennia.
And, of course, you know the answer!
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
Well, many flat Earthers do think that their own theory is the only theory. You try to change Sandokhan's or Wise's mind about their respective theories!
-
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
Flat Earthers may well come up with many different theories and model. The problem is that they all maintain the same common problem of assuming the Earth is flat.
-
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
That's a great anti flat earther quote there.
Considering the Rowbotham book is a bible for a lot of them, and the vast majority of arguments are based on 500 year old astronomers observations and disprove theories from hundreds of years ago. "But Tycho said the Earth doesn't orbit!"
They think Rowbotham proved the Earth is flat, and all the knowledge that we gained after that is wrong because there is nothing new to learn.
As opposed to science, which is constantly trying to learn new things, expand and improve old theories, and replace them if we find a better one.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
That's a great anti flat earther quote there.
Considering the Rowbotham book is a bible for a lot of them, and the vast majority of arguments are based on 500 year old astronomers observations and disprove theories from hundreds of years ago. "But Tycho said the Earth doesn't orbit!"
They think Rowbotham proved the Earth is flat, and all the knowledge that we gained after that is wrong because there is nothing new to learn.
As opposed to science, which is constantly trying to learn new things, expand and improve old theories, and replace them if we find a better one.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Nobody is bound to it though. That is why there are so many 'models'
Round Earthers are stuck on one model and for the most part, it doesn't matter what new information gets presented, unless mainstream think decides to change, individuals wont.
-
So round Earthers should have more models? Why?
-
So round Earthers should have more models? Why?
No, but they should be open to the possibility they are wrong. Or at least not seeing the sheer scale of how the universe operates.
To me, it doesn't matter if humans can never interact or even know of the existence of other spatial dimensions. If they exist, they are part of our universe and should be included.
But if our universe is nothing but a holographic projection from a 2D source, well that sounds like we live on Flatland. It's just physics we haven't learned about that makes our world appear spherical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Keep in mind also everything about the universe lends itself to a flat shape. The universe is said to be flat. The Plane of the Ecliptic, flat. Many galaxy shapes - flat. Earth - flat.
-
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
That's a great anti flat earther quote there.
Considering the Rowbotham book is a bible for a lot of them, and the vast majority of arguments are based on 500 year old astronomers observations and disprove theories from hundreds of years ago. "But Tycho said the Earth doesn't orbit!"
They think Rowbotham proved the Earth is flat, and all the knowledge that we gained after that is wrong because there is nothing new to learn.
As opposed to science, which is constantly trying to learn new things, expand and improve old theories, and replace them if we find a better one.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Nobody is bound to it though. That is why there are so many 'models'
Round Earthers are stuck on one model and for the most part, it doesn't matter what new information gets presented, unless mainstream think decides to change, individuals wont.
No, that is 100% not true at all. You have it completely wrong.
If there was GOOD, SOLID evidence of a flat Earth, people would believe that. Scientists would be the first to change to the new theory. I would personally be amazed and excited and thrilled.
You are talking like there is good evidence, like China has been sending up rockets and showing pictures of a flat disk and mounting expeditions over the edge and analyzing samples of the dome and landing probes on the back of the spotlight sun, but the rest of the world is covering it up, or something.
No, people believe the world is round because there is no good reason to think otherwise.
It's good to imagine alternate possibilities, that's why I'm here! But it's not good to reject reality in favor of a bunch of random 'models' for no other reason than to be able to claim your not stuck in the mainstream.
-
It's good to imagine alternate possibilities, that's why I'm here! But it's not good to reject reality in favor of a bunch of random 'models' for no other reason than to be able to claim your not stuck in the mainstream.
This is the thing. Snowflake is strong.
I'd hazard a guess in quite many, if not most, cases of FE it is FE which is their only means of having a leg up on others.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
In essence what you are saying is truth to a flat earther is irrelevant as it can change on a daily basis
How does your flat earth free thinking, today, explain the difference in the photographs of the moon in the example I mentioned earlier? Would you have a different explanation next week?
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
Where do you get your information from?
How do you vet your information and decide if it's true' or not
Where do you get your understanding of the universe from?
As a free-thinking individual with very limited senses, like the rest of us, how can you determine anything about the universe other than that you can see with your own eyes?
Speaking about your eyes how do you explain the discrepancy between what you see when you look at the moon and what I see, with you being in Australia and me in the UK.
How does a free thinker explain that?
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
In essence what you are saying is truth to a flat earther is irrelevant as it can change on a daily basis
How does your flat earth free thinking, today, explain the difference in the photographs of the moon in the example I mentioned earlier? Would you have a different explanation next week?
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
Where do you get your information from?
How do you vet your information and decide if it's true' or not
Where do you get your understanding of the universe from?
As a free-thinking individual with very limited senses, like the rest of us, how can you determine anything about the universe other than that you can see with your own eyes?
Speaking about your eyes how do you explain the discrepancy between what you see when you look at the moon and what I see, with you being in Australia and me in the UK.
How does a free thinker explain that?
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
-
I found a good example of how a flat earther sees the truth of our world.
Saying things like that almost makes you sound like a flat Earth believer. Yet you have insisted previously that you don't have a particular view on either side.
I think he decided there was more troll potential in going full flat.
I'm not sure what the point of this inane OP is however, as I bet even rab won't respond to it.
What makes you think whether I care about rab replying or not? It is inconsequential. Your replies on the other hand.... Hilarious
It is odd people do live without questioning anything though. No better than a dog mindlessly obeying his master. Waking up each day without the concept of a tomorrow. Just trolls along with the present.
Everyone should be free to think what they wish. The problems begin when zealots start pronouncing that it is only they, due to their ‘free thinking’. are able to see and know the truth, and everyone else is being controlled by some hidden 1984ish authoritarian power.
So what does ‘free thinking’ actually mean according to a flat earther? From the many examples on this forum it appears to mean being allowed to think up any idea one wishes and proclaiming it to be true, regardless of available evidence.
For example, flat earthers proclaim the sun is a small body near to the earth and not 1.4 million kilometres in diameter at a distance of around 150 million kilometres. Why do they think that? What actual evidence do they base their ‘free thinking’ on? They base it on no evidence at all, rather they base it on need. They need the sun to be small and near to fit with the earth being flat, so hey presto! It becomes a flat earth free thinking truth, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Flat earth ‘free thinking’ should be called ‘locked in thinking’ as everything they think has to conform to their flat earth belief no matter what.
Locked in thinking is what you get when you put ideas into a book. If a Flat Earther says one day one thing and another day, changes it up, that is free. There is no constraints. It is for the most part, a free world. It is not for you to decide what their truth is
Are you sure you're not the zealot pronouncing your theory is the only theory?
In essence what you are saying is truth to a flat earther is irrelevant as it can change on a daily basis
How does your flat earth free thinking, today, explain the difference in the photographs of the moon in the example I mentioned earlier? Would you have a different explanation next week?
Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'
Our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. It is foolhardy to regress your understanding by centuries because you think there has been nothing new to be learnt.
Where do you get your information from?
How do you vet your information and decide if it's true' or not
Where do you get your understanding of the universe from?
As a free-thinking individual with very limited senses, like the rest of us, how can you determine anything about the universe other than that you can see with your own eyes?
Speaking about your eyes how do you explain the discrepancy between what you see when you look at the moon and what I see, with you being in Australia and me in the UK.
How does a free thinker explain that?
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
-
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
Because no answer is straight. At least as far as the human mind can currently understand of our universe.
You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it.
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
No one has the 'answer'. Not even you 8)
-
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
Because no answer is straight. At least as far as the human mind can currently understand of our universe.
You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it.
....and that's the best answer your free-thinking mind can come up with? How do you explain, given you believe in a flat earth, that your view of the moon is upside down with respect to my view?
How do you know I am 17,000 miles away?
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
No one has the 'answer'. Not even you 8)
That's a very narrow-minded response that only someone with a closed mind would give.
Your logic:-
You don't have an answer to a question.....you don't want to look totally stupid!.... so to cover yourself you say no one has an answer! ....which equates with the proverbial three-legged horse....lame.
That aside.
Where do you get you information from on which your free-thinking mind cogitates? the answer to that one would be very illuminating.
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
No one has the 'answer'. Not even you 8)
Of course there are answers to simple questions like that!
-
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
Because no answer is straight. At least as far as the human mind can currently understand of our universe.
You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it.
....and that's the best answer your free-thinking mind can come up with? How do you explain, given you believe in a flat earth, that your view of the moon is upside down with respect to my view?
How do you know I am 17,000 miles away?
~17,000km. Not miles. Based on me being in Canberra and you being in UK
Please note the use of the symbol '~'. Obviously not exactly 17,000km but close enough to around that figure.
It is just fact that no one has answers to everything. Not me, not you, not rab. If there is a God, perhaps he has answers to everything. He's not lurking these boards to help us out so tough tits you wont get straight answers.
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
No one has the 'answer'. Not even you 8)
Of course there are answers to simple questions like that!
You'd be surprised
-
Hey Shifter, the usual bots, trolls and sock puppets are here only defending the mainstream with NASA to back them up.
Now I have a question for these drones. What if anything that NASA says is true nowdays do you not believe? You guys are programmed( brainwashed) to believe everything that NASA feeds you.
-
Hey Shifter, the usual bots, trolls and sock puppets are here only defending the mainstream with NASA to back them up.
Now I have a question for these drones. What if anything that NASA says is true nowdays do you not believe? You guys are programmed( brainwashed) to believe everything that NASA feeds you.
I don't believe them when they say they are going to land people on the Moon by 2024. Not because I think the first landings were a hoax, I just don't think the money and drive is there to really push that deadline.
Four years from now if I'm proven wrong I'll be very happy.
I can't imagine I'll still be posting here in a year let alone four, though if we do land humans on the Moon that would likely bring me back. :)
-
It is just fact that no one has answers to everything. Not me, not you, not rab. If there is a God, perhaps he has answers to everything. He's not lurking these boards to help us out so tough tits you wont get straight answers.
Nobody here, apart maybe from maybe Sandokhan ;D, claims to have "answers to everything"! Who suggested that they did?
But you seem to think nobody can have the answers to anything.
-
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
Ask yourself the qua
Because no answer is straight. At least as far as the human mind can currently understand of our universe.
You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it.
....and that's the best answer your free-thinking mind can come up with? How do you explain, given you believe in a flat earth, that your view of the moon is upside down with respect to my view?
How do you know I am 17,000 miles away?
~17,000km. Not miles. Based on me being in Canberra and you being in UK
Please note the use of the symbol '~'. Obviously not exactly 17,000km but close enough to around that figure.
It is just fact that no one has answers to everything. Not me, not you, not rab. If there is a God, perhaps he has answers to everything. He's not lurking these boards to help us out so tough tits you wont get straight answers.
Ask yourself the question. How do you know its 17,000 miles? Have you yourself measured it?
-
The answers are contained in your your last question. Free thinking
I dont say I am right so much as I say I know there is more to our world and universe than we can understand. I wont constrain myself to a book or what some random people on the internet say to tell me what is what.
Question everything. Including what may appear obvious. When mainstream takes a view, start with an opposing one. If you appreciate science than you would appreciate the questions. The speculations. The differing hypothesis. Never pack it up and say we've learned all there is to know.
So, as usual you have no answer ;D! Figures!
No one has the 'answer'. Not even you 8)
Of course there are answers to simple questions like that!
You'd be surprised
I'd be surprised if you give a clear answer to the following two questions but let's give it a go. With your best free-thinking hat on:-
Why is your view of the moon upside down relative to my view?
What is the source of your information?
-
Nobody is bound to it though. That is why there are so many 'models'
Round Earthers are stuck on one model and for the most part, it doesn't matter what new information gets presented, unless mainstream think decides to change, individuals wont.
There is pretty much just one RE model with different levels of simplification, because Earth is round.
Because this one model actually works to explain things.
It has nothing at all to do with indoctrination.
There are so many different FE "models", because none of them work to explain reality.
So they need different models to try to explain different aspects of reality, pushing the problem around as they do so.
This also means that FEers do not simply see what is true. If they did, they would all have one model, not numerous contradictory models which cannot all be true.
Being open to the possibility that you are wrong doesn't mean accepting unsubstantiated garbage, nor rejecting what is supported by mountains of evidence.
Meanwhile, how many FEers do you know of that are open to the possibility that they are wrong, and that Earth is actually round? NONE!
If they were, they would have accepted all the evidence showing Earth to be round and accepted that Earth was round. Or at the very least, they would admit there is no reason to believe Earth is flat.
But if our universe is nothing but a holographic projection from a 2D source, well that sounds like we live on Flatland. It's just physics we haven't learned about that makes our world appear spherical.
No, it doesn't. 2D does not mean flat.
Keep in mind also everything about the universe lends itself to a flat shape. The universe is said to be flat. The Plane of the Ecliptic, flat. Many galaxy shapes - flat. Earth - flat.
The universe is EUCLIDEAN, not flat in the sense of a flat object.
You have literally no basis at all for claiming Earth is flat.
How do you explain, given you believe in a flat earth, that your view of the moon is upside down with respect to my view?
The moon being upside down is trivial. The impossible part is explaining why the view is different ~only by a rotation, rather than seeing a completely different area or it being skewed.
-
I wonder if Shifter has ever heard a physicist beginning their answer to one of the fundamental 'big' questions such as 'How did the Universe begin?' with the words 'we think...' as opposed to 'we know...'.
Science is about trying to provide the answers to all the questions we come up with about nature and the Universe. It is a very brave physicist who uses the word know in place of the word think. However the more we learn the more confident we can feel about being on the right road. Shifter maintains that we should question 'everything' and in some ways we do. Physicists spend their careers testing and retesting their hypotheses. By repeating experiments and observations we are questioning the previous results and looking for errors. If the actual results or data gained from observation or experiments consistently agree with the predicted results of data then we can start to turn 'we think' into 'we will now accept that as true until something gives us reason not to'. This falls short of 'we know' but it represents a point that Shifter seems reluctant to acknowledge. If we are never willing to accept things as true though, how will we ever make any progress? So rather than say 'we know' we should say 'to the best of our understanding'.
Mother nature decides what is true and real not us. So by saying 'to the best of our understanding' we are acknowledging this. Through the generations science has helped us to gather more and more data from which we can reach an educated guess about what is true and real and so far all that evidence has led science to consider that the best way to explain everything we see and experience on Earth is to regard it as a a sphere. Flat Earthers will disagree but that is simply their own conclusion based on what they believe. The same evidence is available to everyone but not everyone will reach the same conclusions. Flat Earthers have their reasons for reaching the conclusions they reach and the same applies to round Earth. The difference in my opinion is that RE is based much more on real data and evidence while FE seems to be happy to rely simply on faith or blind belief.
Only mother nature ultimately knows all the answers. That most certainly is true and always will be. She doesn't care what we think or believe either. If she could speak she would say you can interpret the truth however you wish but you cannot change what is real. That is for us to figure out.
-
So you don't like giving straight answers!
How about explaining how your free-thinking mind comes up with an answer to explain why how you see of the moon is very different from the way I see the moon. Straight question which your free-thinking mind should be able to answer.
Ask yourself the qua
Because no answer is straight. At least as far as the human mind can currently understand of our universe.
You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it.
....and that's the best answer your free-thinking mind can come up with? How do you explain, given you believe in a flat earth, that your view of the moon is upside down with respect to my view?
How do you know I am 17,000 miles away?
~17,000km. Not miles. Based on me being in Canberra and you being in UK
Please note the use of the symbol '~'. Obviously not exactly 17,000km but close enough to around that figure.
It is just fact that no one has answers to everything. Not me, not you, not rab. If there is a God, perhaps he has answers to everything. He's not lurking these boards to help us out so tough tits you wont get straight answers.
Ask yourself the question. How do you know its 17,000 miles? Have you yourself measured it?
Are you dense? Like black hole singularity dense?I said kilometres. And I used '~'. That is not a symbol for 'precise'
Learn to comprehend. Gee, and you would think I'm stupid. Look at yourself!
-
Hey Shifter, the usual bots, trolls and sock puppets are here only defending the mainstream with NASA to back them up.
Now I have a question for these drones. What if anything that NASA says is true nowdays do you not believe? You guys are programmed( brainwashed) to believe everything that NASA feeds you.
Evil NASA! Hahaha!
I love the way flat earthers keep banging on about NASA, as if this wasn't all figured out hundreds of years before they existed. But you've got to have your boogieman, so it gets unthinkingly repeated again, and again, and again, and again...
Almost like you've all been brainwashed.
-
So round Earthers should have more models? Why?
No, but they should be open to the possibility they are wrong. Or at least not seeing the sheer scale of how the universe operates.
To me, it doesn't matter if humans can never interact or even know of the existence of other spatial dimensions. If they exist, they are part of our universe and should be included.
But if our universe is nothing but a holographic projection from a 2D source, well that sounds like we live on Flatland. It's just physics we haven't learned about that makes our world appear spherical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Keep in mind also everything about the universe lends itself to a flat shape. The universe is said to be flat. The Plane of the Ecliptic, flat. Many galaxy shapes - flat. Earth - flat.
Ironic!
How do you know the universe is flat?
How do you know anything to do with the shape of galaxies?
You say the universe is said to be flat! Most Likely by the same people who would say the earth is a sphere!
All what you say shows classic signs of cherry picking
coupled with a mixed up way of thinking.
Anything you know about the Cosmos is through information supplied by astronomers, the very same people who would state the earth is a sphere. There is no other way it can be interpreted!
Do you think the distance between you and I which you claim to be 17,000 km can change from day to day or is it fixed?
Flat earthers see only what they want to see, and you have demonstrated that very thing going by the replies you have given.
-
So round Earthers should have more models? Why?
No, but they should be open to the possibility they are wrong. Or at least not seeing the sheer scale of how the universe operates.
To me, it doesn't matter if humans can never interact or even know of the existence of other spatial dimensions. If they exist, they are part of our universe and should be included.
But if our universe is nothing but a holographic projection from a 2D source, well that sounds like we live on Flatland. It's just physics we haven't learned about that makes our world appear spherical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Keep in mind also everything about the universe lends itself to a flat shape. The universe is said to be flat. The Plane of the Ecliptic, flat. Many galaxy shapes - flat. Earth - flat.
Ironic!
How do you know the universe is flat?
How do you know anything to do with the shape of galaxies?
You say the universe is said to be flat! Most Likely by the same people who would say the earth is a sphere!
All what you say shows classic signs of cherry picking
coupled with a mixed up way of thinking.
Anything you know about the Cosmos is through information supplied by astronomers, the very same people who would state the earth is a sphere. There is no other way it can be interpreted!
Do you think the distance between you and I which you claim to be 17,000 km can change from day to day or is it fixed?
Flat earthers see only what they want to see, and you have demonstrated that very thing going by the replies you have given.
My God you struggle with comprehension
Saying 'it is said to be flat' is not asserting that it is.
You clearly have a lot if things you wish to say. Too bad for you a lot of what I say is filled with qualifiers that rob you of the opportunity. Still doesn't seem to stop you though lol.
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Just say what you want to say. Don't bother reading my posts
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
This is what most people have a problem with when you come right out and say it. That because I don't know what an alien on the other side of the universe had for breakfast, I have no idea what's sitting in front of me.
We know the Earth is a sphere, and not knowing what color an aliens poop is doesn't change that. We can know things about the planet we live on without knowing all the mysteries of the universe.
The shape of the Earth is not a best guess, it's a simply fact. The same fact as the shape of my desk. If you want to go on a philosophical journey about not knowing if anything is real or question the nature of your own existence that's fine, but you can't just declare everyone else is wrong because you're not sure how alien burps smell.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Yet more science fiction dressed up. The Matrix has a lot to answer for!
Back to the real world.
Like many flat earthers you like to throw up such smoke screens like your atoms or code. The only reason you know about either thing is due to the hard work of scientists. You like other flat earthers are no more than leeches, pretending you reject science, knowledge and learning, yet sucking up those bits that you imagine bolster your ego and position.
You bandy about complex ideas, none of which are your own, that you have little understanding about while totally unable to deal with simple observations. You say many things are unknown yet you are willing to accept the earth is flat!
Your OP is about the truth and the claim that only free thinking flat earthers can see it. In the light of you believing the earth is flat explain to me the simple observation of the moon that you can make by looking up, that reveals a view that is upside down in relation to what I see. If the earth is flat how do you explain that?
Let’s hear your free thinking thoughts on that and any truths you may have to share.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Nature of the universe!
How about you just explain to me what you see when you look up at the moon!
Your avoiding it like the plague, as you have no answer, preferring instead to deal with things you can never on your own account have any notion or understanding of, apart from what you pick up from watching scifi.
You say you speak the truth, yet you fail to answer simple questions like, where you get your information from.
How about some honesty on your part?
-
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Whatever, you can still determine the shape of the thing we live on, that we call Earth, in this simulation.
This is the flat Earth Society so read the start of your own society's Wiki:
Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.
No wishy-washy stuff there.
That seems in no no that the "Society's" policy is that that "the earth is flat". So, what's with all your refusal to answer simple questions?
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Yet more science fiction dressed up. The Matrix has a lot to answer for!
Back to the real world.
Like many flat earthers you like to throw up such smoke screens like your atoms or code. The only reason you know about either thing is due to the hard work of scientists. You like other flat earthers are no more than leeches, pretending you reject science, knowledge and learning, yet sucking up those bits that you imagine bolster your ego and position.
You bandy about complex ideas, none of which are your own, that you have little understanding about while totally unable to deal with simple observations. You say many things are unknown yet you are willing to accept the earth is flat!
Your OP is about the truth and the claim that only free thinking flat earthers can see it. In the light of you believing the earth is flat explain to me the simple observation of the moon that you can make by looking up, that reveals a view that is upside down in relation to what I see. If the earth is flat how do you explain that?
Let’s hear your free thinking thoughts on that and any truths you may have to share.
The simulated universe theory has nothing to do with the matrix. And is an actual theory postulated by egg heads
You keep going on about the moon. I already answered it if you care to learn how to read. I have not avoided it yet you keep babbling on about the moon. Are you a lunatic?
-
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Whatever, you can still determine the shape of the thing we live on, that we call Earth, in this simulation.
This is the flat Earth Society so read the start of your own society's Wiki:
Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.
No wishy-washy stuff there.
That seems in no no that the "Society's" policy is that that "the earth is flat". So, what's with all your refusal to answer simple questions?
And what questions have I refused to answer? Keep in mind there is a lot of noise in this thread so let's not jump to harsh conclusions
-
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Whatever, you can still determine the shape of the thing we live on, that we call Earth, in this simulation.
This is the flat Earth Society so read the start of your own society's Wiki:
Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.
No wishy-washy stuff there.
That seems in no no that the "Society's" policy is that that "the earth is flat". So, what's with all your refusal to answer simple questions?
And what questions have I refused to answer? Keep in mind there is a lot of noise in this thread so let's not jump to harsh conclusions
Where did you reply to this?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To establish the ‘truth’ in regard to the shape of the earth, for example, is ridiculously simple in this day and age. All you need is a person in Australia and one in the UK. Other country combinations will also work, southern Chile and Canada for example. Get each to take a well exposed photo of the moon on a clear night with a camera with a reasonable telephoto lens.
An examination of the two photos will reveal that the photographs of the same moon are very different. A right thinking person would conclude that this, along with all the other evidence, points to the earth being a sphere of some sort, with each of the two photographers being on opposite hemispheres. A free thinking flat earther would concoct some elaborate story to make the pictures fit what they believe, despite the evidence of their own eyes.
-
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Whatever, you can still determine the shape of the thing we live on, that we call Earth, in this simulation.
This is the flat Earth Society so read the start of your own society's Wiki:
Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.
No wishy-washy stuff there.
That seems in no no that the "Society's" policy is that that "the earth is flat". So, what's with all your refusal to answer simple questions?
And what questions have I refused to answer? Keep in mind there is a lot of noise in this thread so let's not jump to harsh conclusions
Not necessarily in this thread:
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
-
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Whatever, you can still determine the shape of the thing we live on, that we call Earth, in this simulation.
This is the flat Earth Society so read the start of your own society's Wiki:
Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.
No wishy-washy stuff there.
That seems in no no that the "Society's" policy is that that "the earth is flat". So, what's with all your refusal to answer simple questions?
And what questions have I refused to answer? Keep in mind there is a lot of noise in this thread so let's not jump to harsh conclusions
Not necessarily in this thread:
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
What of it? I chimed in voluntarily there with my own answer. I believe the question was initially directed to Heiwa but no one could accept the fact that the premise of their question was moot in his mind.
-
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
If you truly believe that why do you claim FEers see the truth?
Are you saying they know the nature of the universe?
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
The lines of code would make atoms, which in turn make the spherical Earth.
Even in if this universe is a simulation, Earth is still round.
Things don't need to be part of the ultimate reality to have things known about them.
For example, it is known that Luke skywalker is a Jedi knight/master. That he had his hand cut off. And so on.
-
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
If you truly believe that why do you claim FEers see the truth?
Are you saying they know the nature of the universe?
It's about Flat Earthers seeing through the BS. No no one has the full understanding. But Flat Earthers understand enough to know that society is jerking everyone around and is not to be trusted unconditionally. We see Flat Earth as the 'best guess' as you see your Round Earth
-
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
The lines of code would make atoms, which in turn make the spherical Earth.
When you play a computer game eg 'The Sims' lol. Are atoms created? If we are somebodies/somethings simulation, then it is the same.
-
It's about Flat Earthers seeing through the BS.
But it can't be.
If we can't know anything at all, they aren't seeing thorugh the BS to the truth.
They are just seeing more BS.
Regardless, that isn't what you claimed.
You claimed they see the truth.
Again, if it is all assumptions and no one knows, how do they see the truth?
Or were you just spouting garabge?
When you play a computer game eg 'The Sims' lol. Are atoms created? If we are somebodies/somethings simulation, then it is the same.
So you don't even understand how simulations work?
Just because one simulation doesn't create atoms doesn't mean no simulation can.
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
What of it? I chimed in voluntarily there with my own answer. I believe the question was initially directed to Heiwa but no one could accept the fact that the premise of their question was moot in his mind.
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.".
-
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
What of it? I chimed in voluntarily there with my own answer. I believe the question was initially directed to Heiwa but no one could accept the fact that the premise of their question was moot in his mind.
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.".
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
-
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
If you truly believe that why do you claim FEers see the truth?
Are you saying they know the nature of the universe?
It's about Flat Earthers seeing through the BS. No no one has the full understanding. But Flat Earthers understand enough to know that society is jerking everyone around and is not to be trusted unconditionally. We see Flat Earth as the 'best guess' as you see your Round Earth
If you flat Earthers really did look at the evidence you would not doubt that the the Earth is a Globe but you don't!
Any evidence flat Earthers can't refute they claim is fabricated, often by the NASA :o run conspiracy!
But the typical flat Earther just takes the superficial view that their bit of Earth looks flat so the whole world must be flat.
Since they (YOU) cannot see the whole world most get their "model" from a book or YouTube.
A big number of flat Earthers get all their "indoctrination" from YouTube. I guess you never meet any of the YouTube flat Earthers - I do!
-
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see."
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
If it's not a non-answer it is utter stupidity to claim that you need "the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety"!
-
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
The lines of code would make atoms, which in turn make the spherical Earth.
When you play a computer game eg 'The Sims' lol. Are atoms created? If we are somebodies/somethings simulation, then it is the same.
The Sims doesn't simulate it's world/characters to the atomic level.
But if our universe is a simulation, then it must simulate everything as we experience it. Including, chemical properties and reactions, phases of matter, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, etc, etc, etc. All the things that tell us that matter is made of atoms must be simulated, or nobody would have come to the conclusion that matter is made of atoms.
The "simulated universe" idea doesn't give you a free pass to reject science and claim that nothing can ever be known. It would just make science the study of the rules and properties of the simulation, which in practical terms is pretty much the same thing. We would still be using science to make discoveries and technology that affect our little simulated lives.
-
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see."
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
If it's not a non-answer it is utter stupidity to claim that you need "the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety"!
Well if you want 100% confidence you will need it. Otherwise go and plod along possibly being wrong about everything you think you know.
-
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.".
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
Reasonable to you.
But this is why that question is so good, and why Hewia refuses to answer it. If that guy even understands the question.
Shifter's answer shows that he will accept no evidence, ever, about anything because we will never know the universe in it's entirety. So as long as there is any unknown, he can and will deny all of science and knowledge and make up whatever beliefs he wants.
"We don't know everything, so we know nothing at all."
That is a pretty extreme, and crazy viewpoint. But that's his answer.
-
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.".
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
Reasonable to you.
But this is why that question is so good, and why Hewia refuses to answer it. If that guy even understands the question.
Shifter's answer shows that he will accept no evidence, ever, about anything because we will never know the universe in it's entirety. So as long as there is any unknown, he can and will deny all of science and knowledge and make up whatever beliefs he wants.
"We don't know everything, so we know nothing at all."
That is a pretty extreme, and crazy viewpoint. But that's his answer.
^^ See. This guy understands 8)
-
What of it is that you gave the non-answer "First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see."
It's not a non answer. It's the only reasonable thing there is to say. Without that data, I can not 'answer' your question with 100% confidence.
If it's not a non-answer it is utter stupidity to claim that you need "the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety"!
Well if you want 100% confidence you will need it. Otherwise go and plod along possibly being wrong about everything you think you know.
To claim that you you need "the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety" to answer a very local question is totally ridiculous and just a way of avoiding an answer and you know it is!
So what shape is the Earth?
Is it flat with boundaries that cannot be crossed - such as the "outer ring" in the "Ice-Wall" model or is it close to a sphere with no boundaries that cannot be crossed?
No wishy-washy non-answers allowed!
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Yet more science fiction dressed up. The Matrix has a lot to answer for!
Back to the real world.
Like many flat earthers you like to throw up such smoke screens like your atoms or code. The only reason you know about either thing is due to the hard work of scientists. You like other flat earthers are no more than leeches, pretending you reject science, knowledge and learning, yet sucking up those bits that you imagine bolster your ego and position.
You bandy about complex ideas, none of which are your own, that you have little understanding about while totally unable to deal with simple observations. You say many things are unknown yet you are willing to accept the earth is flat!
Your OP is about the truth and the claim that only free thinking flat earthers can see it. In the light of you believing the earth is flat explain to me the simple observation of the moon that you can make by looking up, that reveals a view that is upside down in relation to what I see. If the earth is flat how do you explain that?
Let’s hear your free thinking thoughts on that and any truths you may have to share.
The simulated universe theory has nothing to do with the matrix. And is an actual theory postulated by egg heads
You keep going on about the moon. I already answered it if you care to learn how to read. I have not avoided it yet you keep babbling on about the moon. Are you a lunatic?
You never answered the question regarding the moon, you just said it would look different because of the distance, which was an incredibly stupid answer if you had even stopped to think about it.
Lets think about it.
The distance from Edinburgh, Scotland to Camberra Australia is around 10,500 miles.
The distance from the Earth to the moon is 384,500 miles give or take.
The difference in distance between Edinburgh and Canberra should make little difference in how we each should see the moon given its distance if the earth was flat!
The problem for you that you keep avoiding because you have no answer is the moon for you is upside down. Explain that free-thinking flat earther. You could always ask an egghead though they would say its because we are living on a sphere.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Yet more science fiction dressed up. The Matrix has a lot to answer for!
Back to the real world.
Like many flat earthers you like to throw up such smoke screens like your atoms or code. The only reason you know about either thing is due to the hard work of scientists. You like other flat earthers are no more than leeches, pretending you reject science, knowledge and learning, yet sucking up those bits that you imagine bolster your ego and position.
You bandy about complex ideas, none of which are your own, that you have little understanding about while totally unable to deal with simple observations. You say many things are unknown yet you are willing to accept the earth is flat!
Your OP is about the truth and the claim that only free thinking flat earthers can see it. In the light of you believing the earth is flat explain to me the simple observation of the moon that you can make by looking up, that reveals a view that is upside down in relation to what I see. If the earth is flat how do you explain that?
Let’s hear your free thinking thoughts on that and any truths you may have to share.
The simulated universe theory has nothing to do with the matrix. And is an actual theory postulated by egg heads
You keep going on about the moon. I already answered it if you care to learn how to read. I have not avoided it yet you keep babbling on about the moon. Are you a lunatic?
You never answered the question regarding the moon, you just said it would look different because of the distance, which was an incredibly stupid answer if you had even stopped to think about it.
Lets think about it.
The distance from Edinburgh, Scotland to Camberra Australia is around 10,500 miles.
The distance from the Earth to the moon is 384,500 miles give or take.
The difference in distance between Edinburgh and Canberra should make little difference in how we each should see the moon given its distance if the earth was flat!
The problem for you that you keep avoiding because you have no answer is the moon for you is upside down. Explain that free-thinking flat earther. You could always ask an egghead though they would say its because we are living on a sphere.
I did answer. It's just an answer you dont like to hear. So quit your lying
-
What I find perplexing about this whole conversation stems from the original opening statement, which claimed that Flat Earthers have the ability to see whats true!
The reason why I find this perplexing is that while they may claim to see the truth they find great difficulty in communicating the truth as they see it.
Some Examples.
Shifter claims his truth is one that is in a state of flux changing as new information is revealed to him.
The question I asked him which he failed to answer is, What is the source of this information?
If he is indeed into truth I asked him to explain why his view of the moon is upside down in relation t what I see, with him being in Australia and I being in the UK.
This is a key question that he has avoided answering preferring to fudge it by saying its due to the 10,500 miles between us. Given the moon is 385,000 miles distant from the earth, give or take, his answer explaining nothing. His OP was all about truth, so far his responses have been severely lacking in any truth. He has not answered where he gets his information from on which he bases his ever-changing beliefs, nor has he addressed the issue of his upside-down moon. It strikes me his opening statement about flat earther and truth should be more accurately flat earthers and evasion.
-
What I find perplexing about this whole conversation stems from the original opening statement, which claimed that Flat Earthers have the ability to see whats true!
The reason why I find this perplexing is that while they may claim to see the truth they find great difficulty in communicating the truth as they see it.
Some Examples.
Shifter claims his truth is one that is in a state of flux changing as new information is revealed to him.
The question I asked him which he failed to answer is, What is the source of this information?
If he is indeed into truth I asked him to explain why his view of the moon is upside down in relation t what I see, with him being in Australia and I being in the UK.
This is a key question that he has avoided answering preferring to fudge it by saying its due to the 10,500 miles between us. Given the moon is 385,000 miles distant from the earth, give or take, his answer explaining nothing. His OP was all about truth, so far his responses have been severely lacking in any truth. He has not answered where he gets his information from on which he bases his ever-changing beliefs, nor has he addressed the issue of his upside-down moon. It strikes me his opening statement about flat earther and truth should be more accurately flat earthers and evasion.
As already said (I guess reading is not your strong suit) it's not that we 'know the truth', its more in this instance, we 'know we are being lied to'.
You keep going on about the moon. You sound like a lunatic.
-
Yeah a 4 eyed geek says the universe could be flat. So? Another geek says it could be open. Another says it could be closed. So me saying it is said to be flat is hardly cherry picking. No one knows
But flat in the way physical cosmologists use the term has nothing to do with the Earth or even galaxies being flat.
Cosmologists are looking further even than the observable Universe - that part's spherical of necessity.
But I don't bother about all of that. It's interesting to read but not slightest thing to do with our Solar system or even nearby stars.
Virtually all the individual stars we see with the unaided eye are just local stars in the Milky Way.
Yet another thing you steam roll over because you want to say 'cherry pick' despite not having the right opportunity lol
Why do you go on about all unknowns in Cosmology when it's the shape and movement of the Earth and the paths of the moons and planets that should be sorted out first?
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
Don't be absurd!
There's not the slightest need to know "the nature of the universe" before determining a simple local thing like the shape of the Earth.
If our universe was just a simulation for example. Are you made up of atoms? Or ultimately just lines of code?
Yet more science fiction dressed up. The Matrix has a lot to answer for!
Back to the real world.
Like many flat earthers you like to throw up such smoke screens like your atoms or code. The only reason you know about either thing is due to the hard work of scientists. You like other flat earthers are no more than leeches, pretending you reject science, knowledge and learning, yet sucking up those bits that you imagine bolster your ego and position.
You bandy about complex ideas, none of which are your own, that you have little understanding about while totally unable to deal with simple observations. You say many things are unknown yet you are willing to accept the earth is flat!
Your OP is about the truth and the claim that only free thinking flat earthers can see it. In the light of you believing the earth is flat explain to me the simple observation of the moon that you can make by looking up, that reveals a view that is upside down in relation to what I see. If the earth is flat how do you explain that?
Let’s hear your free thinking thoughts on that and any truths you may have to share.
The simulated universe theory has nothing to do with the matrix. And is an actual theory postulated by egg heads
You keep going on about the moon. I already answered it if you care to learn how to read. I have not avoided it yet you keep babbling on about the moon. Are you a lunatic?
You never answered the question regarding the moon, you just said it would look different because of the distance, which was an incredibly stupid answer if you had even stopped to think about it.
Lets think about it.
The distance from Edinburgh, Scotland to Camberra Australia is around 10,500 miles.
The distance from the Earth to the moon is 384,500 miles give or take.
The difference in distance between Edinburgh and Canberra should make little difference in how we each should see the moon given its distance if the earth was flat!
The problem for you that you keep avoiding because you have no answer is the moon for you is upside down. Explain that free-thinking flat earther. You could always ask an egghead though they would say its because we are living on a sphere.
I did answer. It's just an answer you dont like to hear. So quit your lying
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
-
What I find perplexing about this whole conversation stems from the original opening statement, which claimed that Flat Earthers have the ability to see whats true!
The reason why I find this perplexing is that while they may claim to see the truth they find great difficulty in communicating the truth as they see it.
Some Examples.
Shifter claims his truth is one that is in a state of flux changing as new information is revealed to him.
The question I asked him which he failed to answer is, What is the source of this information?
If he is indeed into truth I asked him to explain why his view of the moon is upside down in relation t what I see, with him being in Australia and I being in the UK.
This is a key question that he has avoided answering preferring to fudge it by saying its due to the 10,500 miles between us. Given the moon is 385,000 miles distant from the earth, give or take, his answer explaining nothing. His OP was all about truth, so far his responses have been severely lacking in any truth. He has not answered where he gets his information from on which he bases his ever-changing beliefs, nor has he addressed the issue of his upside-down moon. It strikes me his opening statement about flat earther and truth should be more accurately flat earthers and evasion.
As already said (I guess reading is not your strong suit) it's not that we 'know the truth', its more in this instance, we 'know we are being lied to'.
You keep going on about the moon. You sound like a lunatic.
You keep avoiding in true flat earth fashion answering any question honestly.
Why is your view of the moon upside down in relation to my view? You would have to be a lunatic to not answer such a simple question!
What is the source of the information that you base your ever-changing beliefs on?
Two straight questions that for some reason you avoid giving truthful answers to, instead you call me a liar!.... Show me the lie
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
-
What I find perplexing about this whole conversation stems from the original opening statement, which claimed that Flat Earthers have the ability to see whats true!
The reason why I find this perplexing is that while they may claim to see the truth they find great difficulty in communicating the truth as they see it.
Some Examples.
Shifter claims his truth is one that is in a state of flux changing as new information is revealed to him.
The question I asked him which he failed to answer is, What is the source of this information?
If he is indeed into truth I asked him to explain why his view of the moon is upside down in relation t what I see, with him being in Australia and I being in the UK.
This is a key question that he has avoided answering preferring to fudge it by saying its due to the 10,500 miles between us. Given the moon is 385,000 miles distant from the earth, give or take, his answer explaining nothing. His OP was all about truth, so far his responses have been severely lacking in any truth. He has not answered where he gets his information from on which he bases his ever-changing beliefs, nor has he addressed the issue of his upside-down moon. It strikes me his opening statement about flat earther and truth should be more accurately flat earthers and evasion.
As already said (I guess reading is not your strong suit) it's not that we 'know the truth', its more in this instance, we 'know we are being lied to'.
You keep going on about the moon. You sound like a lunatic.
You keep avoiding in true flat earth fashion answering any question honestly.
Why is your view of the moon upside down in relation to my view? You would have to be a lunatic to not answer such a simple question!
What is the source of the information that you base your ever-changing beliefs on?
Two straight questions that for some reason you avoid giving truthful answers to, instead you call me a liar!.... Show me the lie
Maybe the image processing in your brain doesn't flip the image back to the right way around from your retinas.
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
If its no secret why do you not share it?
Your explanation of why you see the moon upside down in relation to what I see is pretty pathetic....try again.
-
What I find perplexing about this whole conversation stems from the original opening statement, which claimed that Flat Earthers have the ability to see whats true!
The reason why I find this perplexing is that while they may claim to see the truth they find great difficulty in communicating the truth as they see it.
Some Examples.
Shifter claims his truth is one that is in a state of flux changing as new information is revealed to him.
The question I asked him which he failed to answer is, What is the source of this information?
If he is indeed into truth I asked him to explain why his view of the moon is upside down in relation t what I see, with him being in Australia and I being in the UK.
This is a key question that he has avoided answering preferring to fudge it by saying its due to the 10,500 miles between us. Given the moon is 385,000 miles distant from the earth, give or take, his answer explaining nothing. His OP was all about truth, so far his responses have been severely lacking in any truth. He has not answered where he gets his information from on which he bases his ever-changing beliefs, nor has he addressed the issue of his upside-down moon. It strikes me his opening statement about flat earther and truth should be more accurately flat earthers and evasion.
As already said (I guess reading is not your strong suit) it's not that we 'know the truth', its more in this instance, we 'know we are being lied to'.
You keep going on about the moon. You sound like a lunatic.
You keep avoiding in true flat earth fashion answering any question honestly.
Why is your view of the moon upside down in relation to my view? You would have to be a lunatic to not answer such a simple question!
What is the source of the information that you base your ever-changing beliefs on?
Two straight questions that for some reason you avoid giving truthful answers to, instead you call me a liar!.... Show me the lie
Maybe the image processing in your brain doesn't flip the image back to the right way around from your retinas.
It has nothing to do what I see, its what everyone sees. Why do you keep evading the question.
Now the source of this information of yours....please share.....otherwise people might think you are just making stuff up!
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
If its no secret why do you not share it?
Your explanation of why you see the moon upside down in relation to what I see is pretty pathetic....try again.
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
I really dont care what you think of my explanations. You're just trolling and are not here in good faith so to be honest I dont care to give you one. I wont give you any more reason to pad your post count on this thread again. Good day to you
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
If its no secret why do you not share it?
Your explanation of why you see the moon upside down in relation to what I see is pretty pathetic....try again.
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
I really dont care what you think of my explanations. You're just trolling and are not here in good faith so to be honest I dont care to give you one. I wont give you any more reason to pad your post count on this thread again. Good day to you
Out where? that's not very specific now, is it? It sounds very much like you don't have an answer, and have just been making stuff up from the get-go. Your OP regarding the truth looks very hollow as you have not once been truthful, have you?
You have been disingenuous from the off, sounding out about being truthful then behaving in exactly the opposite.
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
I see, I see. Kinda like how a flat disc could also be convex in shape, to the extent the edges meet up and form a ball? I like where you're going with this, Shifter! If only for those pesky mountains and valleys, it could be a truly "flat" earth.
Sea level all the way! Or is that, "see" level? (Shifter, have you written this, straight after one of your night shifts?)
-
Your answer, your words:
"You and I are possibly ~17,000km apart or more. Of course, looking at an object in the sky will give us a different view of it."
Do you honestly think that answers why your view of the moon is upside down in relation to my view?
You also say:-
"Depends on what information comes to light next week. I'm not going to pull out a century old book and say 'but but, here it says...'"
Where do you get your information from? Is it a big secret?
I thought you were all about the truth, but so far its been rather absent from any of your posts as you appear to be reluctant to give any preferring to lapse into abuse.
It's no secret. Maybe if you opened your eyes and mind you would see.
And yes, we would see the moon differently due to the distance. Aint no doubt about that.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
I see, I see. Kinda like how a flat disc could also be concave in shape, to the extent the edges meet up and form a ball? I like where you're going with this, Shifter! If only for those pesky mountains and valleys, it could be a truly "flat" earth.
Sea level all the way! Or is that, "see" level? (Shifter, have you written this, straight after one of your night shifts?)
I'm still on my night shift. Just half an hour to go!! 8)
-
I can tell! You can always tell when I'm on the night shift, too!
-
I can tell! You can always tell when I'm on the night shift, too!
lol 8) nice! I'd say 95% of all my posts are done from 'work'
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I didn't insult you (at least not in this thread), I insulted your picture.
That image you have as proof is just a silly computer animation.
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I didn't insult you (at least not in this thread), I insulted your picture.
That image you have as proof is just a silly computer animation.
Those are real images, from a real satellite, of our real planet. And you avoided answering any questions. Your trolling is getting boring. :(
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I didn't insult you (at least not in this thread), I insulted your picture.
That image you have as proof is just a silly computer animation.
Those are real images, from a real satellite, of our real planet. And you avoided answering any questions. Your trolling is getting boring. :(
You didn't ask any questions. You gave me some advice I won't take. A statement I don't agree with. And what almost seemed like a question but then showed me a picture of a spinning ball that obviously has no ends so not a real question
Your trolling is what's tiring. And just like your friend Timeisup, I'll no longer allow your post count to be padded by me in this thread any further for the trolling. Good day sir
-
Ya'll should take a look out of your window. Then tell me, did you see a curve or no?
-
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat. I'm not sure why people think a flat earth has to be like a 2D shape ::)
Now I'm curious. How can the surface of an object be both curved and flat?
That's not possible in any geometry I'm aware of. Does this surface have a name?
Or are you talking about a dome?
(https://i.imgur.com/y1gHlEH.jpg)
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
It also can explain why pictures from space dont show the 'ends of the Earth'
(https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.88.87/l0t.5e0.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EarthsAtmosphere_4628x1500.jpg)
A 'flat earth' does not necessitate a 2D flatness with zero curve. Why cant there be any degree of convex?
PS Your convex example is deliberately extreme, exaggerated, clearly what no one is talking about and stupid
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I didn't insult you (at least not in this thread), I insulted your picture.
That image you have as proof is just a silly computer animation.
Shifter, the stooges on here we're told the image is real by NASA of course. They have no alternative but to believe.
-
As already said (I guess reading is not your strong suit) it's not that we 'know the truth', its more in this instance, we 'know we are being lied to'.
So you admit your OP is pure garbage and that FEers do not see the truth?
Also, if you don't know anything, how do you know that you are being lied to.
Surely you need to know absolutely everything about the universe to come to that conclusion.
Quit with the double standard.
If REers can't know, you can't either.
Did you know the Earth could be a flat disc that's convex in shape? It would have curvature while still being flat.
What, do you mean curved like part of a cylinder, where it is curved along one principle axis only, having 0 gaussian curvature and thus can be deemed flat, where you use fundamentally different meanings of curved and flat?
Otherwise that is a direct contradiction.
If you have a pair of specs, it may have a slight curve to it. Not enough to wrap around all the way but the lenses are still flattish
Flattish is not flat.
Glasses are not flat.
Now imagine something the size of the Earth. A slight convex shape would explain a horizon and why you cant see your neighbouring country on the clearest of days
i.e. similar to the FE model of the ancients were Earth was only a few hundred km at most.
The problem is that with the required curvature and the size of Earth, it isn't just a slight bulge over a mostly flat disc.
Why is your view of the moon upside down in relation to my view? You would have to be a lunatic to not answer such a simple question!
Again, why ask such a trivial question?
Take a photo or magazine or book or something and place it on a table.
Now look at it from one side of the table. Then go around to the other side of the table and look at it.
Is it still the same way up?
-
Always with the insults.
You said "curvature while still being flat" not "flattish". Pick your words with care, they do have meanings. If you use the wrong words it's not my fault.
The problem with your idea is that it still has an edge, and on the real world there is no edge.
What do you mean pictures from space don't show the ends of the Earth? Where exactly are these ends?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I didn't insult you (at least not in this thread), I insulted your picture.
That image you have as proof is just a silly computer animation.
The above image is a "computer animation" but composed of genuine photographs taken by the DSCOVR EPIC at the L1 Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun.
But there are hundreds of thousands of individual photos of Earth from space eg:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTQc5Wyb/20160727-Russian-Satellite-Photo-around-midday-December-2015.jpg)
But they all debunk the flat Earth so flat-Earthers must declare them all fake, "CGI" like all other evidence against the flat Earth.
It's all supposed to part of this stupid "conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth".
So your flat Earth needs a massive conspiracy to support it!
Far from "The flat earther sees what's true" the truth is that the flat Earther hides from any evidence against his world-view.
-
What's wrong with a flat earth being 'flattish'? As long as overall it's flat as you imagine it
I mean how many people say the earth is a sphere when it's only really 'sphere-ish'? Is it a perfect sphere, no.
Stop with the double standard
-
Those are real images, from a real satellite, of our real planet. And you avoided answering any questions. Your trolling is getting boring. :(
You didn't ask any questions. You gave me some advice I won't take. A statement I don't agree with. And what almost seemed like a question but then showed me a picture of a spinning ball that obviously has no ends so not a real question
Your trolling is what's tiring. And just like your friend Timeisup, I'll no longer allow your post count to be padded by me in this thread any further for the trolling. Good day sir
You really have gone full Flat Earther, haven't you.
Now all images from space are fake.
NASA is run by the devil.
Space isn't real.
I did ask a question, if the earth is a sorta-flat bunt actually curved disk thing, where is the edge? I guess you missed it.
-
What's wrong with a flat earth being 'flattish'? As long as overall it's flat as you imagine it
You can look through your tinted glasses and call the Earth what you like - it's not my problem!
I mean how many people say the earth is a sphere when it's only really 'sphere-ish'? Is it a perfect sphere, no.
Surely you aren't as ignorant of these things as you seem?
But the Earth is so close to being spherical that the usual comment when people see a photograph is "but isn't it an ''oblate spheroid?"
Like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTQc5Wyb/20160727-Russian-Satellite-Photo-around-midday-December-2015.jpg)
And the photo wasn't taken by NASA! The Equatorial diameter is only 0.3% larger than the Polar diameter.
Stop with the double standard
Who has this double standard?
-
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
This is the lowest form of answer, and always seen in the case of conspiracy theorists trying to explain their position.
What it really means is "I have nothing, I do not know much about the thing in question, and even though this is becoming clearer to me, I will not yield".
-
(https://tenor.com/view/truth-conspiracy-theory-gif-12846713.gif)
-
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
This is the lowest form of answer, and always seen in the case of conspiracy theorists trying to explain their position.
What it really means is "I have nothing, I do not know much about the thing in question, and even though this is becoming clearer to me, I will not yield".
He was quite broad with his question so the answer is not 'the lowest form'
He asked 'where do you get your information?' That's awfully broad. It's not 'where did you learn such and such?'
Information.
Try books, internet, school, the great outdoors, your own observations, experiments etc etc.
So yeah, it's all 'out there'. Maybe he should get off his arse, quit to ridicule others and get out to the real world
If you ask something as broad as 'information' font expect an answer that's narrow. It will be just as broad
Also quit trolling the thread with your nonsense. You thought you had a cool set up going to use 'oh that's the lowest form of answer' but you failed. Now you look like a troll. Next time you want to use that line (or any others), make sure the situation warrants it rather than pissing it off to the wind
-
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
This is the lowest form of answer, and always seen in the case of conspiracy theorists trying to explain their position.
What it really means is "I have nothing, I do not know much about the thing in question, and even though this is becoming clearer to me, I will not yield".
He was quite broad with his question so the answer is not 'the lowest form'
He asked 'where do you get your information?' That's awfully broad. It's not 'where did you learn such and such?'
Information.
Try books, internet, school, the great outdoors, your own observations, experiments etc etc.
So yeah, it's all 'out there'. Maybe he should get off his arse, quit to ridicule others and get out to the real world
If you ask something as broad as 'information' font expect an answer that's narrow. It will be just as broad
This doesn’t fit with your usual stance that unless we know everything, we know nothing.
You were saying earlier that we need a complete model of the universe to know something simple like the shape of the earth (paraphrased). So what good are any of your books, experiments, observations, etc without a completely model of the universe.
Is it possible to actually determine anything or not?
-
Dude the information is out there. Just get out and learn
This is the lowest form of answer, and always seen in the case of conspiracy theorists trying to explain their position.
What it really means is "I have nothing, I do not know much about the thing in question, and even though this is becoming clearer to me, I will not yield".
He was quite broad with his question so the answer is not 'the lowest form'
He asked 'where do you get your information?' That's awfully broad. It's not 'where did you learn such and such?'
Information.
Try books, internet, school, the great outdoors, your own observations, experiments etc etc.
So yeah, it's all 'out there'. Maybe he should get off his arse, quit to ridicule others and get out to the real world
If you ask something as broad as 'information' font expect an answer that's narrow. It will be just as broad
This doesn’t fit with your usual stance that unless we know everything, we know nothing.
You were saying earlier that we need a complete model of the universe to know something simple like the shape of the earth (paraphrased). So what good are any of your books, experiments, observations, etc without a completely model of the universe.
Is it possible to actually determine anything or not?
Of course. All these things are still important. It's just reliance on them as being the God given truth is stupid. Never rest on your laurels.
The "unless we know everything, we know nothing" is rab putting words in my mouth to exaggerate me in such a way it looks like nonsense
Its more like, "The more we think we know, the more we realise we dont know" or "There will always be more questions. Every answer leads to more questions" In other words, we are always on the backfoot in knowledge. 1 step forward, 10 steps backwards. Such is the scale of the universe
If a spherical Earth works for your observations, great. But dont end the observations there. Don't rest on it content you have figured it all out. Don't tell people 'dont do any experiments looking for other dimensions or the nature of our universe because we can be quite comfortable with what we know now"
Scientists have spent a lot of money and time testing the simulated universe theory. Such as here
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
Now if we were smart, we would not assume the conclusion in this test is the end of the matter. We should test again. test using different methods and ideas etc. Not just pack it up satisfied we have an answer
Or the holographic universe theory such as here https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-universe-is-a-hologram
Or looking for extra dimensions using gravitational waves https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravitational-dose-reality-extra-dimensions.html
All these things are good to do. Someone has an idea - no matter how far fetched and it gets tested. However no one should be comforted by the conclusions of any 1 test no matter which way it falls. Humanity should indeed spend it's existence, testing and testing again and again
And one other thing - we should assume with every test that our understanding of physics may be wrong. It may not apply to certain conditions we are testing in. If you do a test and follow a very rigid, inflexible set of rules, then it may end up leading to missed answers and opportunities
For example e=mc2? We should be trying to break it. We should not assume it is universally applied everywhere in every condition
-
All these things are good to do. Someone has an idea - no matter how far fetched and it gets tested. However no one should be comforted by the conclusions of any 1 test no matter which way it falls. Humanity should indeed spend it's existence, testing and testing again and again.
I believe this is pretty much what is happening.
No idea why you think we are stagnant.
-
All these things are good to do. Someone has an idea - no matter how far fetched and it gets tested. However no one should be comforted by the conclusions of any 1 test no matter which way it falls. Humanity should indeed spend it's existence, testing and testing again and again.
I believe this is pretty much what is happening.
No idea why you think we are stagnant.
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
Science is constantly evolving and learning. So who is to say who is definitively right. If there was a test back when I was in Primary school to name the planets - and I forgot or didn't mention about Pluto, I'd be marked down. If I said 'Pluto is not a planet - too small - it has not cleared its orbital path', I'd be considered stupid. Nowadays if I mentioned Pluto as a planet, I'd be told I am wrong
-
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
I just yesterday read about the simulation hypothesis as I remembered it from somewhere. Quite many articles about it, and my understanding is there are people out there trying and thinking of ways to find evidence for and against.
So, again, there is a lot of brain power harnessed to figuring out stuff.
-
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
I just yesterday read about the simulation hypothesis as I remembered it from somewhere. Quite many articles about it, and my understanding is there are people out there trying and thinking of ways to find evidence for and against.
So, again, there is a lot of brain power harnessed to figuring out stuff.
Again, this is good. People on the forum here seem to assert they have the answers already and we are NOT in a simulated universe. You see my answer to this (and other theories (to which I get a lot of shit for) is that 'we dont know that'
That is why I say to give you a definitive answer with 100% degree of confidence is that we need to have the understanding of the universe. Without it, we simply dont know. Yet, such a response has people claim I am trolling. Whatever
Lets think of a puzzle. We know it is a huge puzzle. Perhaps it has infinite pieces. We are tasked to complete the puzzle. We are not given the pieces. We have to find the pieces. And we aren't given an idea of what the finished puzzle looks like until we complete it. But given we dont know how many pieces there are and we have to find them all, it makes it hard to finish the puzzle. This is how I think the universe and trying to understand it is like
-
Ok let's apply your logic then. Let's say we don't know anything for sure. Where 'for sure' means with 100% confidence. That doesn't stop people having opinions or beliefs in one thing or another.
What then is your belief about what shape the Earth is in terms of being round or flat? It's pretty clear from each of your posts that you appear to believe the Earth is flat so what factors have influenced your opinion? I am talking about normal, every day observations that we can all make. Not what the shape would appear to be from the point of view of a passing photon.
-
Ok let's apply your logic then. Let's say we don't know anything for sure. Where 'for sure' means with 100% confidence. That doesn't stop people having opinions or beliefs in one thing or another.
What then is your belief about what shape the Earth is in terms of being round or flat? And what factors have influenced your opinion?
^ This guy knows how to ask a question (take note Timeisup)
Lets start with 'what factors have influenced your opinion'
Well when I first came here to this forum I was a round earther. And I was just as much a dick to the flat earthers here as many other people were. But over time, I saw the behaviour for what it was. I started to listen to the flat earthers here. And while I didn't necessarily agree with their views, I respected it. I then began to question everything myself. I was no longer content with assuming everything in the book or everything rabinoz was saying was correct. So I started asking things like 'what if'. I began to try and view the universe, from different points of view. What does it look like from this reference? What if the dimension of time was not a thing? Or not linear? What if our theories on gravity are far more incomplete than we thought? What if our models of physics have 'answers' that are actually wrong? And so on.
The title 'the flat earther sees what's true' needs to be taken in context with the short part of the video (not the whole movie). They see what we are not told to see. They do not see what the mainstream sees. They think of their own will and their own mind.
And as for the first part of your question
"What then is your belief about what shape the Earth is in terms of being round or flat?"
I stake my flag on a flat earth with the caveat that I am not saying 100% that is the shape of the world - end of story. Does a spherical model work for us humble humans toiling away our meager quaint lives? Yes. Does it mean that that is the end of it? Well not if your a fan of science, learning and discovery. If you take an outrageous sounding viewpoint, as long as you are open minded, it lends to you hitting the books and learning more. Even if your quest is futile, the fact you got out and tried to learn and defend (even if it turns out was indefensible) will have netted you more knowledge than simply accepting what you overheard on the idiot box (TV) and that's that.
We all have beliefs and asking someone why do they have faith in what they do will never give someone a concise answer to be honest. That is the nature of faith. Ask the Pope why he believes and follows Jesus as opposed to Buddha. You probably will walk away as dumbfounded as when you started. I am still into science and discovery and always open to new ideas. Maybe I am fighting a futile battle. It doesn't matter. Life is about how you live, not the destination. As long as you like and are content with it, who cares if your belief was ultimately wrong
-
That is why I say to give you a definitive answer with 100% degree of confidence is that we need to have the understanding of the universe. Without it, we simply dont know. Yet, such a response has people claim I am trolling. Whatever
No, it's because you say we can't know the shape of the planet we live on because we don't understand stuff in the far reaches of the universe.
It's because we will never, ever understand and know everything. But you put that as a condition to understand anything, so you are saying we can't ever know anything.
No, I can't know anything with 100% confidence but so what? I know if I jump out of a window on the 80th floor I'm going to die. Do I know this for 100%? No. But are you willing to jump out that window just because you don't know for SURE it will kill you?
Of course not. And anyone saying "Well you can't know for SURE... DO IT!" would be called crazy.
Just if you claim we can't know the Earth is round because we don't understand the entire universe.
That's what makes you seem like a troll, your every answer is "Well we don't know everything so EVERYTHING you say is wrong!" When all your arguments eventually boil down to some philosophical statement about the limits of perception or or maybe we are in a simulation or maybe aliens are feeding our brains false data... yeah. That's trolling. It's how every single conversation winds up, and we have heard it a hundred times already. It's an interesting discussion but you can't just force it into every single discussion. There is a reason we have philosophy and science, and only mix them sparingly. They serve different needs.
-
Of course. All these things are still important. It's just reliance on them as being the God given truth is stupid. Never rest on your laurels.
No one claims they are.
The "unless we know everything, we know nothing" is rab putting words in my mouth to exaggerate me in such a way it looks like nonsense
Rab quoted you in another post, specifically this one:
No, you can't understand a simple question, "what evidence would you accept" and have spent days being unable to understand it and just confusedly repeating the same non-answer over and over.
I find it rather amusing that I get pretty much the same type of stonewalling whenever I ask FE'ers what evidence they would accept that the earth is round.
Oh that's easy
First present us with the complete works and nature of the universe in its entirety. Then we can have a look at the data and see.
We already know though from a photons perspective the Earth would 'appear' to be pretty flat. As would the entire universe. Who is to say that a photons perspective is not the default view and we are just an anomaly? Until you get that data we cant be sure. So dont bank on any particular shape
Not that I need him to tell me your position, as you say stuff like this all the time.
Its more like, "The more we think we know, the more we realise we dont know" or "There will always be more questions. Every answer leads to more questions"
That’s what happens in science.
In other words, we are always on the backfoot in knowledge. 1 step forward, 10 steps backwards. Such is the scale of the universe
Er, no. What steps backwards?
When we talk about about the shape of the earth, early civilizations thought it was flat (which it how it arguably appears when you only look from one location), then as people travelled further, they realized it must be round, then through observation of the stars and planets, realized the sun was the center of the solar system, etc.
Each step was a step forward, that provides a better fit for the available evidence, so the previous model was superseded. It’s the flat earth movement that’s trying to go backwards, right back to the beginning.
If a spherical Earth works for your observations, great. But dont end the observations there. Don't rest on it content you have figured it all out. Don't tell people 'dont do any experiments looking for other dimensions or the nature of our universe because we can be quite comfortable with what we know now"
Well, that’s the problem isn’t it. Observations show the earth is spherical and orbiting the sun. For the heliocentric model to be overturned, flat earthers would need to explain ALL the observations at least as well as the heliocentric model, but I’m afraid they can’t make the really basic stuff work. So instead we get denial of very simple principles and conspiracy theories.
Scientists have spent a lot of money and time testing the simulated universe theory. Such as here
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
Now if we were smart, we would not assume the conclusion in this test is the end of the matter. We should test again. test using different methods and ideas etc. Not just pack it up satisfied we have an answer
Or the holographic universe theory such as here https://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-universe-is-a-hologram
Or looking for extra dimensions using gravitational waves https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravitational-dose-reality-extra-dimensions.html
All these things are good to do. Someone has an idea - no matter how far fetched and it gets tested. However no one should be comforted by the conclusions of any 1 test no matter which way it falls. Humanity should indeed spend it's existence, testing and testing again and again
Perhaps you should show this level of appreciation for all the other things scientists have spent far more time and money testing?
And one other thing - we should assume with every test that our understanding of physics may be wrong. It may not apply to certain conditions we are testing in. If you do a test and follow a very rigid, inflexible set of rules, then it may end up leading to missed answers and opportunities
For example e=mc2? We should be trying to break it. We should not assume it is universally applied everywhere in every condition
Actually there’s a very good reason to assume that it’s a universal law.
Having assumptions isn’t inherently bad. However, they aren’t set in stone, and can be overturned with sufficient evidence to the contrary. I’m sure there are physicists actively trying to break it. In fact making assumptions is necessary to test a hypothesis.
What it’s really about is the degree of confidence of various assumptions. Something that’s been corroborated over and over is far less likely to the cause of anomalous results than something that hasn’t. Particularly when the evidence is from multiple fields arriving at the same conclusion (consilience of evidence). So the first thing to look for is what other assumptions or errors might have been made to produce that result.
When looking at the shape of the earth, the amount of corroborating evidence is just absurd. There’s entire fields of science that would need to be completely thrown out or rewritten- physics, astronomy, geology, meteorology, etc. along with how they are used for everyday activities such as telecommunications, navigation and travel.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-
The "unless we know everything, we know nothing" is rab putting words in my mouth to exaggerate me in such a way it looks like nonsense
No, that is just to clearly show that your claim is nonsense.
These were your exact words:
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
That sure seems to sound like that unless we know everything, i.e. define the nature of the universe, then we can't know anything as it is just an assumption or best guess.
So which is it?
Do we actually know things, or is it all just assumptions and guesses?
Don't tell people 'dont do any experiments looking for other dimensions or the nature of our universe because we can be quite comfortable with what we know now"
And no one is doing that.
That has nothing to do with ignoring the mountains of evidence and tests which clearly show that Earth is round, not flat.
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
Except you weren't just posting that as an idea by itself. Instead you were using it to dismiss all the evidence that shows Earth is round as we know it.
The universe being a hologram doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round hologram.
The universe being a simulation doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round simulation.
The universe having extra dimensions doesn't magically mean Earth is flat. It may be flat in those extra dimensions, but that doesn't stop it being round in the 3 we know.
-
The "unless we know everything, we know nothing" is rab putting words in my mouth to exaggerate me in such a way it looks like nonsense
No, that is just to clearly show that your claim is nonsense.
These were your exact words:
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
That sure seems to sound like that unless we know everything, i.e. define the nature of the universe, then we can't know anything as it is just an assumption or best guess.
So which is it?
Do we actually know things, or is it all just assumptions and guesses?
Don't tell people 'dont do any experiments looking for other dimensions or the nature of our universe because we can be quite comfortable with what we know now"
And no one is doing that.
That has nothing to do with ignoring the mountains of evidence and tests which clearly show that Earth is round, not flat.
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
Except you weren't just posting that as an idea by itself. Instead you were using it to dismiss all the evidence that shows Earth is round as we know it.
The universe being a hologram doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round hologram.
The universe being a simulation doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round simulation.
The universe having extra dimensions doesn't magically mean Earth is flat. It may be flat in those extra dimensions, but that doesn't stop it being round in the 3 we know.
You deliberately misconstrued and blow it out if proportion. Of course there's things we 'know'. If I eat 20,000 calories a day and live as a couch potato, it's a certainty I'll gain weight. Or how about if I put a gun to your head and unload an entire magazine into your brain, I can say the outcome would not be good for your health and well-being!
Given you have decided to play a troll on this thread, I'll not entertain you on anything else you wish to say. I won't even bother with the rest of your post. Without reading the rest of your post I know it's you swinging your dick and pissing in the wind showing off how good you think you are.
Good day to you sir
-
The "unless we know everything, we know nothing" is rab putting words in my mouth to exaggerate me in such a way it looks like nonsense
No, that is just to clearly show that your claim is nonsense.
These were your exact words:
Because until we define the nature of the universe, everything else is just an assumption. A best guess.
That sure seems to sound like that unless we know everything, i.e. define the nature of the universe, then we can't know anything as it is just an assumption or best guess.
So which is it?
Do we actually know things, or is it all just assumptions and guesses?
Don't tell people 'dont do any experiments looking for other dimensions or the nature of our universe because we can be quite comfortable with what we know now"
And no one is doing that.
That has nothing to do with ignoring the mountains of evidence and tests which clearly show that Earth is round, not flat.
Well the members on this forum for one. I have postulated all the above theories such as holographic, simulation and extra dimensions only to be met with ridicule and what a stupid thought it is.
Except you weren't just posting that as an idea by itself. Instead you were using it to dismiss all the evidence that shows Earth is round as we know it.
The universe being a hologram doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round hologram.
The universe being a simulation doesn't magically mean Earth isn't round. It would just means it is a round simulation.
The universe having extra dimensions doesn't magically mean Earth is flat. It may be flat in those extra dimensions, but that doesn't stop it being round in the 3 we know.
You deliberately misconstrued and blow it out if proportion. Of course there's things we 'know'. If I eat 20,000 calories a day and live as a couch potato, it's a certainty I'll gain weight. Or how about if I put a gun to your head and unload an entire magazine into your brain, I can say the outcome would not be good for your health and well-being!
Given you have decided to play a troll on this thread, I'll not entertain you on anything else you wish to say. I won't even bother with the rest of your post. Without reading the rest of your post I know it's you swinging your dick and pissing in the wind showing off how good you think you are.
Good day to you sir
Take a look at flat-Earthers like Sandokhan, Wise and sceptimatic! Do they look the slightest bit open minded an receptive of new ideas?
Then take a look at their respective flat-Earth "models". They are completely different so they cannot be correct!
But they and all other "real" flat-Earthers (not a fake like you) are more set in their ways than any I've seen!
There are flat-Earthers looking for an accurate "map" etc but the would never consider the obvious answer - the Earth is close to a sphere!
You, Mr Shifter, are a total hypocrite!
JackBlack is right!
That has nothing to do with ignoring the mountains of evidence and tests which clearly show that Earth is round, not flat.
-
You deliberately misconstrued and blow it out if proportion.
No, that is you entirely.
You appeal to us not knowing everything to pretend we can't know anything, all so you can pretend that RE is unjustified.
So you can pretend the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that Earth is round is useless as we don't know everything so all that evidence could be wrong.
But of course there are things that we know, like the fact that Earth is round.
So no, you are the troll here, not me, that seems to be all you are here for.
-
You deliberately misconstrued and blow it out if proportion.
No, that is you entirely.
You appeal to us not knowing everything to pretend we can't know anything, all so you can pretend that RE is unjustified.
So you can pretend the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that Earth is round is useless as we don't know everything so all that evidence could be wrong.
But of course there are things that we know, like the fact that Earth is round.
So no, you are the troll here, not me, that seems to be all you are here for.
Jack, Shifter claims that "The flat earther sees what's true".
Have you ever seen a "true" flat-Earther (not fake like Shifter) open to any other "model" than the "standard Ice-Wall" flat-Earth (there're the sheep) or there own private ones, like Sandokhan, Wise or Sceptimatic?
Flat Earthers have the minds tightly closed.
-
If I eat 20,000 calories a day and live as a couch potato, it's a certainty I'll gain weight.
But do you eat 20 000 calories a day? I’d love to know.
-
If I eat 20,000 calories a day and live as a couch potato, it's a certainty I'll gain weight.
But do you eat 20 000 calories a day? I’d love to know.
I average about 1500. Unless I watch a movie. Then it's about 2500 8)
-
If I eat 20,000 calories a day and live as a couch potato, it's a certainty I'll gain weight.
But do you eat 20 000 calories a day? I’d love to know.
I average about 1500. Unless I watch a movie. Then it's about 2500 8)
Fair enough! One gots to take in the calories with movies!
EDIT: You inspired me to go get a burger and fries.