The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: EduardoVS-BR on March 14, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
-
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think this subject is not off-context. Then it should "fit" in Flat Earth General.
Ok, you all know that it is uncomfortable to express your opinions about earth's shape in our current society, where round earth is considered an absolute and unquestionable truth. I have did it in school, and that didn't went so well.
I'm in the first year of the High School, and here we are taught obviously that the world is round, this is a recurrent theme in Geography and Physics. But I will speak specifically about my discussions with my Physics teacher on earth's shape.
You know, we have to frequently "swallow" the idea that the earth is round and orbits the sun, as well that the sun is a star, space travel is possible, NASA doesn't lie etc. Some weeks ago, I was listening to these things told by my teacher and then I raised my hand and said: "Teacher, I know a group, a kind of organization, which believes that the earth is flat, and NASA fakes its images.". He answered: "Really? They're ignorant. It was proved that the earth is round. I can think about the possibility of geocentric models, maybe. But a flat earth is impossible."
But the most notable talk ocurred today. We were "learning" the round earth model once again, and the teacher was explaining eclipses. Ok there are internal "theories" here that we found as impossible, so I mentioned bodies like antimoon and antichtone; I could not resist to do it just to kidding, since I remember FES all the time (yes, I regretted it, I'm not a naughty student). After this, the teacher said: "If you want to joke, get out of my class, do not present these absurd theories on a serious Physics class." Then I stayed quiet for a long time. After the class, when everyone had left, I stayed talking alone with my teacher for about 5 minutes. Our talk was like it:
- Me: "Why are you so intolerant towards alternative earth's shape models?"
- He: "Because it was completely evidenced that earth is a sphere, the man went to the moon, and so we can't contest this."
- Me: "Well, there was noticed a number of failures in moon landing images, I think it's fake."
- He: "It's not the only proof. It was proved with several tests associated to perspective, reflection, shadow and many other physic phenomenons. This thing you are talking about is nonsense."
- Me: "But these are not my statements only. I have already told you about a group called the Flat Earth Society, which believes that nobody proved that the earth is round yet. I think you should take a look on their site..."
- He: "I will not take any look. I can see: this should be a lot of fanciful and irrational statements. I can't think on a flat earth..."
- Me: "It is owned by a guy named Daniel Shenton since years ago."
- He: "Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?"
- Me: "He occasionaly posts on the Internet."
- He: "On the Internet? You should be cient that the Internet is full of bullshit."
- Me: "But there are many users in their forums with serious and consistent theories, and..."
- He: "If you want to discuss earth's shape, go back to 600 years ago, go talk with Galileo Galilei. Flat Earth is a myth, used historically by the pope and other individuals to hidden things from people."
- Me: "Anyway, I think you shoud be more open to new ideas. I don't believe completely in these theories about a flat earth. I think it's improbable, but not impossible."
- He: "No, it's impossible. Do not try to retake solved debates of the past..."
- Me: "Ok, teacher. I have to go for now. Bye."
He was laughing most of the time. I said "bye", but he did not replied.
I found interesting to post it here.
-
I'd have had your teacher eating his words.
For next time, even Galileo admitted the sun-centric model was wrong.
I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Commonwealth against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches. But because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre and immovable, and forbidden to hold, defend, or teach, the said false doctrine in any manner ... I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that I will never more in future say, or assert anything, verbally or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me; but that if I shall know any heretic, or any one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be. I swear, moreover, and promise that I will fulfil and observe fully all the penances which have been or shall be laid on me by this Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises, oaths, and protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pains and punishments which have been decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other general and particular constitutions against delinquents of this description. So, may God help me, and His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands, I, the above named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and, in witness thereof, with my own hand have subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have recited word for word.
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
-
I'd have had your teacher eating his words.
For next time, even Galileo admitted the sun-centric model was wrong.
I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Commonwealth against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches. But because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre and immovable, and forbidden to hold, defend, or teach, the said false doctrine in any manner ... I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that I will never more in future say, or assert anything, verbally or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me; but that if I shall know any heretic, or any one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be. I swear, moreover, and promise that I will fulfil and observe fully all the penances which have been or shall be laid on me by this Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises, oaths, and protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pains and punishments which have been decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other general and particular constitutions against delinquents of this description. So, may God help me, and His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands, I, the above named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and, in witness thereof, with my own hand have subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have recited word for word.
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
Regarding Galileo, I am sure that you would say RE is correct if someone threatened to kill you for your belief in FE. Galileo was a man, and I think he honestly didn't care if the church wouldn't take it, so he rolled with whatever they wanted.
If you came into my house with all your buds threatening to kill me unless I recant RE, of course I would recant. It has absolutely no bearing on my life, and it doesn't affect anything I do. Same with the big bang. I honestly don't think science is worth more than life. I am pretty sure Galileo thought the same.
-
- He: "If you want to discuss earth's shape, go back to 600 years ago, go talk with Galileo Galiliei. Flat Earth is a myth, used historically by the pope and other individuals to hidden things from people."
Your teacher is ignorant. The pope never taught that the Earth is flat. Galileo's argument with the Church had nothing to do with its shape. This is all anti-FE propaganda. Your teacher is just another sheep who blindly follows what he's told.
Please tell him I said that.
-
I bet he googled it after. Look out for the angry noob claiming to be a teacher.
-
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think this subject is not off-context. Then it should "fit" in Flat Earth General.
Ok, you all know that it is uncomfortable to express your opinions about earth's shape in our current society, where round earth is considered an absolute and unquestionable truth. I have did it in school, and that didn't went so well.
I'm in the first year of the High School, and here we are taught obviously that the world is round, this is a recurrent theme in Geography and Physics. But I will speak specifically about my discussions with my Physics teacher on earth's shape.
You know, we have to frequently "swallow" the idea that the earth is round and orbits the sun, as well that the sun is a star, space travel is possible, NASA doesn't lie etc. Some weeks ago, I was listening to these things told by my teacher and then I raised my hand and said: "Teacher, I know a group, a kind of organization, which believes that the earth is flat, and NASA fakes its images.". He answered: "Really? They're ignorant. It was proved that the earth is round. I can think about the possibility of geocentric models, maybe. But a flat earth is impossible."
But the most notable talk ocurred today. We were "learning" the round earth model once again, and the teacher was explaining eclipses. Ok there are internal "theories" here that we found as impossible, so I mentioned bodies like antimoon and antichtone; I could not resist to do it just to kidding, since I remember FES all the time (yes, I regretted it, I'm not a naughty student). After this, the teacher said: "If you want to joke, get out of my class, do not present these absurd theories on a serious Physics class." Then I stayed quiet for a long time. After the class, when everyone had left, I stayed talking alone with my teacher for about 5 minutes. Our talk was like it:
- Me: "Why are you so intolerant towards alternative earth's shape models?"
- He: "Because it was completely evidenced that earth is a sphere, the man went to the moon, and so we can't contest this."
- Me: "Well, there was noticed a number of failures in moon landing images, I think it's fake."
- He: "It's not the only proof. It was proved with several tests associated to perspective, reflection, shadow and many other physic phenomenons. This thing you are talking about is nonsense."
- Me: "But these are not my statements only. I have already told you about a group called the Flat Earth Society, which believes that nobody proved that the earth is round yet. I think you should take a look on their site..."
- He: "I will not take any look. I can see: this should be a lot of fanciful and irrational statements. I can't think on a flat earth..."
- Me: "It is owned by a guy named Daniel Shenton since years ago."
- He: "Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?"
- Me: "He occasionaly posts on the Internet."
- He: "On the Internet? You should be cient that the Internet is full of bullshit."
- Me: "But there are many users in their forums with serious and consistent theories, and..."
- He: "If you want to discuss earth's shape, go back to 600 years ago, go talk with Galileo Galilei. Flat Earth is a myth, used historically by the pope and other individuals to hidden things from people."
- Me: "Anyway, I think you shoud be more open to new ideas. I don't believe completely in these theories about a flat earth. I think it's improbable, but not impossible."
- He: "No, it's impossible. Do not try to retake solved debates of the past..."
- Me: "Ok, teacher. I have to go for now. Bye."
He was laughing most of the time. I said "bye", but he did not replied.
I found interesting to post it here.
Your teacher is right.
-
Your teacher should have just said: "Physics only works properly for a round earth. If the earth is flat, we need to learn the physics that makes it work and determine why experimental physics that only works on a round earth is wrong. Maybe you can study this further when you go to university."
How about this for a thought? Galileo said the earth was round and is famous to this day. How about you say the earth is flat, provide proper scientific observations and experiments which show this and be famous for hundreds of years from now. If the earth is flat and you do the paper that shows this, wouldn't it be cool to be known as the person who rewrote physics? Or possibly the Father of Modern Physics?
-
Galileo said the earth was round
Galileo never said that for the simple reason that everybody knew that the Earth is round (the Church too) with few exceptions and this fact was obvious, so no need to reaffirm it. Galileo backed up Copernican theory against Tolemaic Theory. In both Copernican and Tolemaic the Earth is round.
-
You know, they refused Jesus and Coppernicus too!
-
Your teacher should have just said: "Physics only works properly for a round earth.
What physics are you referring to that requires a round earth ??? Surely not any of newton's laws, electricity or magnetism, gas laws, or every other practical and useful aspect of physics... only orbital mechanics would not apply to a flat earth, but the models still work for simulations. And I suppose modern cosmology doesn't really work with a flat earth (no shit), but they don't teach astrophysics in high school anyway.
-
get him to prove it to you without a text book. see what he says and ignore anything that relies on a 3rd party. tell him that he has to prove it to you. then he may get more of an understanding for what the society is about.
-
Your teacher should have just said: "Physics only works properly for a round earth.
What physics are you referring to that requires a round earth ??? Surely not any of newton's laws, electricity or magnetism, gas laws, or every other practical and useful aspect of physics... only orbital mechanics would not apply to a flat earth, but the models still work for simulations. And I suppose modern cosmology doesn't really work with a flat earth (no shit), but they don't teach astrophysics in high school anyway.
Gravity generally doesn't play well with a flat earth.
-
Gravity generally doesn't play well with a flat earth.
True, fortunately, the equations don't care why objects accelerate downward.
-
You should have told him to read ENaG.
-
Those indoctrinated are heavily against hearing the opinion of opposing sides. The despot will always find reason to stay with his initial will.
Of course some things are simply not of interest to people. They have formed their opinion and don't want to see any more evidence as they feel they have already sufficient to make their choice. Thats freedom of belief and its what makes humans forces to be reckoned with.
I would hardly expect a Bible Belt Christian Zealot (I have lots of experience here) to take serious note of another religion presented to them as they already have found their truth (for now), and their path (for now.) They won't change their mind until something makes them question that belief, and many people have to learn that the hard way. In fact most would respond almost violently or reactionary to such attempts to undermine their faith. It is of no wonder why people hate door to door missionaries, as they are doing this very same thing.
That is why, imho, the FES should be non-missionic. That is to say, answer questions to clarify, explain your views but never try to convince or shove them down another's throats. Not only does it not work but its a form of intellectual rape. If it does work, you are likely dealing with a weak minded individual and are more or less using propaganda and selling points to instill beliefs that they would not have come to on their own.
For the most part, people come to us seeking truth or an outlet for their rage (a thin veil of truth seeking.) We don't go to Physics forums and bother them.
-
Gravity generally doesn't play well with a flat earth.
True, fortunately, the equations don't care why objects accelerate downward.
Perhaps not, but the equations do say that sufficiently large masses (say, planet sized bodies) want to form themselves into spheres. That is a problem for FET.
-
Unless they are sufficiently larger, that is to say infinite. Besides, "want" and "do" are two different things.
-
Except that infinite amounts of matter bring their own set of problems. Such as, how does one objectively determine infinity as a quantity?
-
Your teacher should have just said: "Physics only works properly for a round earth.
What physics are you referring to that requires a round earth ??? Surely not any of newton's laws, electricity or magnetism, gas laws, or every other practical and useful aspect of physics... only orbital mechanics would not apply to a flat earth, but the models still work for simulations. And I suppose modern cosmology doesn't really work with a flat earth (no shit), but they don't teach astrophysics in high school anyway.
Light, gravity, and yes, magnetism. Why would the "south magnetic pole" be a ring around the disk of earth, as the Flat Earth map suggests?
-
Except that infinite amounts of matter bring their own set of problems. Such as, how does one objectively determine infinity as a quantity?
Its more a determination of a mostly horizontally uniform gravitational field; from there it follows that the most likely form of the earth is either an infinite plane, which solves many issues, or a suitably large disc that is structurally ideal, which begs many a question.
-
Except that infinite amounts of matter bring their own set of problems. Such as, how does one objectively determine infinity as a quantity?
Its more a determination of a mostly horizontally uniform gravitational field; from there it follows that the most likely form of the earth is either an infinite plane, which solves many issues, or a suitably large disc that is structurally ideal, which begs many a question.
Very interesting. I never read much on the infinite earth topic.
-
I would love an infinite earth. It would mean that house prices would be cheaper and I could afford to live both where I worked and where I like to spend my free time. Damn those Round Earth property speculators!
-
Its more a determination of a mostly horizontally uniform gravitational field; from there it follows that the most likely form of the earth is either an infinite plane, which solves many issues, or a suitably large disc that is structurally ideal, which begs many a question.
Right, because there are so many flaws in the round Earth theory... oh wait, the only "flaw" IN RET is that FES doesn't want to believe it.
-
Right, because there are so many flaws in the round Earth theory... oh wait, the only "flaw" IN RET is that FES doesn't want to believe it.
Well said!
-
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think this subject is not off-context. Then it should "fit" in Flat Earth General.
Ok, you all know that it is uncomfortable to express your opinions about earth's shape in our current society, where round earth is considered an absolute and unquestionable truth. I have did it in school, and that didn't went so well.
I'm in the first year of the High School, and here we are taught obviously that the world is round, this is a recurrent theme in Geography and Physics. But I will speak specifically about my discussions with my Physics teacher on earth's shape.
You know, we have to frequently "swallow" the idea that the earth is round and orbits the sun, as well that the sun is a star, space travel is possible, NASA doesn't lie etc. Some weeks ago, I was listening to these things told by my teacher and then I raised my hand and said: "Teacher, I know a group, a kind of organization, which believes that the earth is flat, and NASA fakes its images.". He answered: "Really? They're ignorant. It was proved that the earth is round. I can think about the possibility of geocentric models, maybe. But a flat earth is impossible."
But the most notable talk ocurred today. We were "learning" the round earth model once again, and the teacher was explaining eclipses. Ok there are internal "theories" here that we found as impossible, so I mentioned bodies like antimoon and antichtone; I could not resist to do it just to kidding, since I remember FES all the time (yes, I regretted it, I'm not a naughty student). After this, the teacher said: "If you want to joke, get out of my class, do not present these absurd theories on a serious Physics class." Then I stayed quiet for a long time. After the class, when everyone had left, I stayed talking alone with my teacher for about 5 minutes. Our talk was like it:
- Me: "Why are you so intolerant towards alternative earth's shape models?"
- He: "Because it was completely evidenced that earth is a sphere, the man went to the moon, and so we can't contest this."
- Me: "Well, there was noticed a number of failures in moon landing images, I think it's fake."
- He: "It's not the only proof. It was proved with several tests associated to perspective, reflection, shadow and many other physic phenomenons. This thing you are talking about is nonsense."
- Me: "But these are not my statements only. I have already told you about a group called the Flat Earth Society, which believes that nobody proved that the earth is round yet. I think you should take a look on their site..."
- He: "I will not take any look. I can see: this should be a lot of fanciful and irrational statements. I can't think on a flat earth..."
- Me: "It is owned by a guy named Daniel Shenton since years ago."
- He: "Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?"
- Me: "He occasionaly posts on the Internet."
- He: "On the Internet? You should be cient that the Internet is full of bullshit."
- Me: "But there are many users in their forums with serious and consistent theories, and..."
- He: "If you want to discuss earth's shape, go back to 600 years ago, go talk with Galileo Galilei. Flat Earth is a myth, used historically by the pope and other individuals to hidden things from people."
- Me: "Anyway, I think you shoud be more open to new ideas. I don't believe completely in these theories about a flat earth. I think it's improbable, but not impossible."
- He: "No, it's impossible. Do not try to retake solved debates of the past..."
- Me: "Ok, teacher. I have to go for now. Bye."
He was laughing most of the time. I said "bye", but he did not replied.
I found interesting to post it here.
Dont care about idiots who go with fashion's flow
-
It's interesting how people are drawn to what they perceive as a counterculture and are unwilling to turn on themselves the critical eye used to assess others.
I agree with not following the crowd for the sake of it, but that doesn't mean that deliberately going against the crowd is automatically the correct path either.
-
Dont care about idiots who go with fashion's flow
I was trying to think of an example that's so extreme and absurd, that not believing in it would make you seem like a raging lunatic, but alas, I realized that I couldn't imagine a more absurd case than dropping RET for FET.
-
I would love an infinite earth. It would mean that house prices would be cheaper and I could afford to live both where I worked and where I like to spend my free time. Damn those Round Earth property speculators!
Sadly, on an infinate-earth model, the areas too far from the circle of the sun are unlivabley cold. However, the theory does not disclude the possibility of other "suns" circling elsewhere above the infinite plane. It's also interesting to note, wherever you are on an infinate plane is the exact center of everything.
-
Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?
Sig'd.
-
I would love an infinite earth. It would mean that house prices would be cheaper and I could afford to live both where I worked and where I like to spend my free time. Damn those Round Earth property speculators!
Sadly, on an infinate-earth model, the areas too far from the circle of the sun are unlivabley cold. However, the theory does not disclude the possibility of other "suns" circling elsewhere above the infinite plane. It's also interesting to note, wherever you are on an infinate plane is the exact center of everything.
It could exist also in a space that allows for the sun to hit all areas. One could imagine anything, but of course more research is necessary. Its best to uncarve the truth, rather than profess it ha.
-
Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?
Daniel Shenton is a guy who occasionally shows up, breaks something, and then disappears.
-
Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?
Daniel Shenton is a guy who occasionally shows up, breaks something, and then disappears.
He does the odd, non-flat earth related, podcast with Lord Wilmore as well.
-
What if the earth was hollow and we were inside it and the center on it is space and outside this hollow sphere is lava. That is a theory but not one that i believe just one i made up just then. I believe in RET not FET or HET or IET or CET
HET= Hollow Earth theory. IET= Infinite Earth Theory. CET= Cube Earth Theory.
-
Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?
Daniel Shenton is a guy who occasionally shows up, breaks something, and then disappears.
He's gotten a lot better since you've been banned.
What if the earth was hollow and we were inside it and the center on it is space and outside this hollow sphere is lava. That is a theory but not one that i believe just one i made up just then. I believe in RET not FET or HET or IET or CET
HET= Hollow Earth theory. IET= Infinite Earth Theory. CET= Cube Earth Theory.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48418.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48418.0)
Thank you for your contribution. Have a nice day.
-
What if the earth was hollow and we were inside it and the center on it is space and outside this hollow sphere is lava. That is a theory but not one that i believe just one i made up just then.
Believe it or not, you didn't invent this theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths)
-
What if the earth was hollow and we were inside it and the center on it is space and outside this hollow sphere is lava. That is a theory but not one that i believe just one i made up just then.
Believe it or not, you didn't invent this theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths)
Wow i didn't know. I just thought of it not even knowing that it existed or not. I still believe RET it makes more sence then flat earth and the evidence is there. if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
-
He's gotten a lot better since you've been banned.
I dunno, maybe I'm just being antagonistic. The way it seems to me, everything that's been broken on the forum is still broken, some new issues have appeared.
-
I would love an infinite earth. It would mean that house prices would be cheaper and I could afford to live both where I worked and where I like to spend my free time. Damn those Round Earth property speculators!
I believe you have answered the question, "What is the reason behind the conspiracy?"
Apparently to keep property values high.
-
Sounds like as good a reason as any.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
Reported for low content posting, and for being an arsehole.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Fear of the knowledge is the beginning of the Lord.
-
Lord of the beginning is the knowledge of fear
-
My turn! To question your knowledge is the answer of wisdom!
-
There really is nothing to fear but fear itself.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Loss of the fear of a God is the fruit of good and evil.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Loss of the fear of a God is the fruit of good and evil.
Hmm. As it is written the story seems to tell the opposite of that. It also makes sense that way.
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
Most pictures of the flat earth are real. Many of the ones that are not were created by NASA.
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
Most pictures of the flat earth are real. Many of the ones that are not were created by NASA.
Hmm. Circular argument, anyone?
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
If you want a picture of the flat earth, take a camera and shoot any photo of the outdoors that you want. If you would like some fake round earth pictures, go to NASA's website.
Hmm. Circular argument, anyone?
I don't see how.
-
Where are their any pictures of a flat earth?
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
Most pictures of the flat earth are real. Many of the ones that are not were created by NASA.
Your statement above which you subsequently edited, breaks down in to: If its flat its real, if its not flat its not real and created by our unproven conspiracy. Its not exactly circular, but it is also not a valid position since it provides no way of falsifying it. The conspiracy argument ends up as a sort of infinite regression, or the FES own personal God of the Gaps.
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
Most pictures of the flat earth are real. Many of the ones that are not were created by NASA.
So you're saying that NASA is faking flat earth pictures too? ???
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
Most pictures of the flat earth are real. Many of the ones that are not were created by NASA.
Your statement above which you subsequently edited, breaks down in to: If its flat its real, if its not flat its not real and created by our unproven conspiracy. Its not exactly circular, but it is also not a valid position since it provides no way of falsifying it. The conspiracy argument ends up as a sort of infinite regression, or the FES own personal God of the Gaps.
Your analysis is right, it's not circular, neither is it valid.
-
if you can get a picture of the Flat earth that is real not fake.
If you want a picture of the flat earth, take a camera and shoot any photo of the outdoors that you want. If you would like some fake round earth pictures, go to NASA's website.
Hmm. Circular argument, anyone?
You're right, it's not circular. It's just not in any way verifiable or falsifiable.
I don't see how.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Loss of the fear of a God is the fruit of good and evil.
Hmm. As it is written the story seems to tell the opposite of that. It also makes sense that way.
Yeah it does; both ways are interesting. I'll return and spit out a more detailed analysis.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
Wisdom is overrated it's not in any way as useful as knowledge.
-
There's a great quote from FE Smith, an English barrister.
The judge was upset by the length of a speech FE Smith was giving, and said "Mr Smith, I have listened to your entire argument, and I am none the wiser".
FE Smith replied "no, my Lord, but you are certainly better informed".
Excellent.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
Wisdom is overrated it's not in any way as useful as knowledge.
I would argue that it is wisdom that made us decide dropping more atom bombs than just the two on live targets was a bad idea. That was pretty useful.
-
Knowledge is useless without wisdom, indeed.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
Wisdom is overrated it's not in any way as useful as knowledge.
I would argue that it is wisdom that made us decide dropping more atom bombs than just the two on live targets was a bad idea. That was pretty useful.
I'd argue that they're equally important. Wisdom needs knowledge as fuel.
-
Definitely
-
Knowledge is useless without wisdom, indeed.
Does a mechanic need wisdom to fix a car? I would say they need technical knowledge. Does a doctor need wisdom to cure a patient? If the patient were me I would rather the surgeon have tremendous medical knowledge.
-
Knowledge is useless without wisdom, indeed.
Does a mechanic need wisdom to fix a car? I would say they need technical knowledge. Does a doctor need wisdom to cure a patient? If the patient were me I would rather the surgeon have tremendous medical knowledge.
Ah, but wisdom is the application of knowledge. Without wisdom, the only thing knowledge is good for is teaching. The hypothetical surgeon may know everything there is to know about the human body, but applying that knowledge during surgery takes wisdom.
-
Knowledge is useless without wisdom, indeed.
Does a mechanic need wisdom to fix a car? I would say they need technical knowledge. Does a doctor need wisdom to cure a patient? If the patient were me I would rather the surgeon have tremendous medical knowledge.
Knowledge is a mechanic knowing how to rebuild a transmission on a vehicle. Wisdom is when the mechanic does not bother with the transmission when the car will not crank. I would think that wisdom is more important.
-
Knowledge is a mechanic knowing how to rebuild a transmission on a vehicle. Wisdom is when the mechanic does not bother with the transmission when the car will not crank. I would think that wisdom is more important.
I would say that both of your examples are knowledge. The mechanic may know from experience (another form of knowledge) not to bother with the transmission. When I see somebody doing something practical in a competent manner I think of them as knowledgable in that area; at no point do I regard this as wisdom. I have no wisdom whatsoever just little bits of knowledge picked up along the way.
-
Knowledge is a mechanic knowing how to rebuild a transmission on a vehicle. Wisdom is when the mechanic does not bother with the transmission when the car will not crank. I would think that wisdom is more important.
I would say that both of your examples are knowledge. The mechanic may know from experience (another form of knowledge) not to bother with the transmission. When I see somebody doing something practical in a competent manner I think of them as knowledgable in that area; at no point do I regard this as wisdom. I have no wisdom whatsoever just little bits of knowledge picked up along the way.
How do you define wisdom?
-
Knowledge is a mechanic knowing how to rebuild a transmission on a vehicle. Wisdom is when the mechanic does not bother with the transmission when the car will not crank. I would think that wisdom is more important.
I would say that both of your examples are knowledge. The mechanic may know from experience (another form of knowledge)...
Umm, no. Knowing something from experience is precisely what wisdom is.
-
Umm, no. Knowing something from experience is precisely what wisdom is.
And yet we have that word 'knowing' which implies knowledge.
-
From the Australian Oxford Dictionary
knowledge: 1a. awareness or familiarity gained by experience; b. a person's range of information
wisdom: 2. experience and knowledge together with the power of applying them critically or practically
Works for me!
-
Umm, no. Knowing something from experience is precisely what wisdom is.
And yet we have that word 'knowing' which implies knowledge.
Mathsman-In case you missed it. I asked what your definition of wisdom is.
-
"The beginning of wisdom is a question."
The beginning of knowledge is the answer.
The beginning of knowledge is not an assumption.
Wisdom is overrated it's not in any way as useful as knowledge.
I would argue that it is wisdom that made us decide dropping more atom bombs than just the two on live targets was a bad idea. That was pretty useful.
I'd argue that they're equally important. Wisdom needs knowledge as fuel.
Depends on your aims.
The sage will find knowledge useless temporary trappings. If you aim to act, knowledge can be useful. One can have sufficient knowledge and wisdom and still have no will to act. The fuel of man is passion, and the sage always|never requires it.
Wisdom if anything creates knowledge. All knowledge you can gain from sources is already known. New|Old "knowledge" is created | discovered through application, observation and, unless forced, nonaction.
-
Mathsman-In case you missed it. I asked what your definition of wisdom is.
Sorry, I did miss it. I'm not sure what my definition of wisdom is. I think wisdom is too nebulous to appeal to me. Knowledge is testable and practical be it knowing how to write a sonnet, play a drop shot in tennis, solve an equation or decorate a house. Wisdom appeals to those who like to pretend they have a deeper understanding of things than the rest of us. You know the kind of bullshit they chant: 'You must be as wise as a tree and as innocent as a stream to achieve your ultimate goal.'
-
Mathsman-In case you missed it. I asked what your definition of wisdom is.
Sorry, I did miss it. I'm not sure what my definition of wisdom is. I think wisdom is too nebulous to appeal to me. Knowledge is testable and practical be it knowing how to write a sonnet, play a drop shot in tennis, solve an equation or decorate a house. Wisdom appeals to those who like to pretend they have a deeper understanding of things than the rest of us. You know the kind of bullshit they chant: 'You must be as wise as a tree and as innocent as a stream to achieve your ultimate goal.'
Interesting-Do feelings appeal to you? I ask because they can also be very nebulous, confusing, impossible to test or pin down and they are an essential part of the human experience.
-
Interesting-Do feelings appeal to you? I ask because they can also be very nebulous, confusing, impossible to test or pin down and they are an essential part of the human experience.
Feelings do appeal to me. They don't carry with them the pseudo-intellectual baggage of wisdom. But even feelings are very little without visible demonstrations of their existence.
-
Interesting-Do feelings appeal to you? I ask because they can also be very nebulous, confusing, impossible to test or pin down and they are an essential part of the human experience.
Feelings do appeal to me. They don't carry with them the pseudo-intellectual baggage of wisdom. But even feelings are very little without visible demonstrations of their existence.
Visible demonstrations? What visible demonstration do you have when you feel something?
I would like to know your answer but I will also cut to the chase:
If you are only interested in a scientific, objective, observable world, then I agree whole-heartedly with all you are saying. If you want to explore the spiritual realm, the nature of consciousness, feeling, and the sublime, knowledge can fail you.
-
Interesting-Do feelings appeal to you? I ask because they can also be very nebulous, confusing, impossible to test or pin down and they are an essential part of the human experience.
Feelings do appeal to me. They don't carry with them the pseudo-intellectual baggage of wisdom. But even feelings are very little without visible demonstrations of their existence.
Visible demonstrations? What visible demonstration do you have when you feel something?
I would like to know your answer but I will also cut to the chase:
If you are only interested in a scientific, objective, observable world, then I agree whole-heartedly with all you are saying. If you want to explore the spiritual realm, the nature of consciousness, feeling, and the sublime, knowledge can fail you.
If somebody claims to love me and then punches me I determine that they don't love me. If somebody claims to love me and then visits me in hospital I determine that they love me. Feelings are pretty empty without the accompanying actions, they are just redundant words.
I write this on the day that three people were sentenced for the manslaughter of six children in an act of arson. Two of these killers were the children's parents. They appeared in press conferences weeping and bewailing the deaths of their children. Did they love them?
Where is this spiritual realm? Do you need a passport to visit it? Are you telling me that the knowledge of how a rainbow is made diminishes its beauty? Are you seriously telling me you love your loved ones more than I love mine? You find music more musical? Poetry more poetic?
When I listen to the choral finale of Mahler's Resurrection symphony I get goose bumps. I recently visited the Electric Mountain power station and was gobsmacked at what we humans can achieve when we put our minds to it. Exhilirating and humbling at the same time.
The true nature of human consciousness will be uncovered, if it is at all possible, by scientists not by priests, shamen and other woo-woo bullshit merchants.
-
Interesting-Do feelings appeal to you? I ask because they can also be very nebulous, confusing, impossible to test or pin down and they are an essential part of the human experience.
Feelings do appeal to me. They don't carry with them the pseudo-intellectual baggage of wisdom. But even feelings are very little without visible demonstrations of their existence.
Visible demonstrations? What visible demonstration do you have when you feel something?
I would like to know your answer but I will also cut to the chase:
If you are only interested in a scientific, objective, observable world, then I agree whole-heartedly with all you are saying. If you want to explore the spiritual realm, the nature of consciousness, feeling, and the sublime, knowledge can fail you.
If somebody claims to love me and then punches me I determine that they don't love me. If somebody claims to love me and then visits me in hospital I determine that they love me. Feelings are pretty empty without the accompanying actions, they are just redundant words.
I write this on the day that three people were sentenced for the manslaughter of six children in an act of arson. Two of these killers were the children's parents. They appeared in press conferences weeping and bewailing the deaths of their children. Did they love them?
Where is this spiritual realm? Do you need a passport to visit it? Are you telling me that the knowledge of how a rainbow is made diminishes its beauty? Are you seriously telling me you love your loved ones more than I love mine? You find music more musical? Poetry more poetic?
When I listen to the choral finale of Mahler's Resurrection symphony I get goose bumps. I recently visited the Electric Mountain power station and was gobsmacked at what we humans can achieve when we put our minds to it. Exhilirating and humbling at the same time.
The true nature of human consciousness will be uncovered, if it is at all possible, by scientists not by priests, shamen and other woo-woo bullshit merchants.
I am in no way trying to diminish or aggrandize any persons feelings, I am not trying to claim that intellectual knowledge definitely diminishes aesthetic appreciation (although it can happen). I definitely think someone can punch someone and mean "I love you", chances are it will not be received that way though. I definitely think a parent can kill a child and still love them. It might be a dark, socially perverse expression but that does not change their feelings does it?
To say that science will uncover the true nature of human consciousness will still leave you questions as to the expression of it or the experience of it. Why does the universe seem so cruel sometimes and so giving the next? You can rationalize it as your own perception, but that does not always satisfy as an answer. This is where art, poetry and the sublime come in to the picture. If you want to speak to a person's heart and not their mind you do not use objective knowledge, you speak experientially (is that a word?).
Anyway, even though you do not like the notion of wisdom, it exists nonetheless, do you have a definition of it?
-
I think this discussion is going off-topic...
-
You think? Have you seen the Appollo 13 thread?
But what about your teacher? Have you talked to him further?
-
Wow, I just saw this thread, it's an off-topic disaster!
My teacher? Well, I decided to don't say anything more to him, because he will hardly listen to me.
-
Listen very carefully to what he's teaching you. If something doesn't seem right, or doesn't make sense, get clarification. But do it in terms of the ideas he's presenting. Hold off on the flat earth ideas until you COMPLETELY understand the existing theory. Just remember that before you try to knock down a theory you need to provide an equivalent or better one. And a new theory has to be checked for ALL its implications to make sure they don't cause conflicts. Remember you're trying to find out the real truth, not just look for reasons to believe a theory you like. Good luck.
-
Many thanks for these advices!
-
Listen very carefully to what he's teaching you. If something doesn't seem right, or doesn't make sense, get clarification. But do it in terms of the ideas he's presenting. Hold off on the flat earth ideas until you COMPLETELY understand the existing theory. Just remember that before you try to knock down a theory you need to provide an equivalent or better one. And a new theory has to be checked for ALL its implications to make sure they don't cause conflicts. Remember you're trying to find out the real truth, not just look for reasons to believe a theory you like. Good luck.
It would be a shame if you were to actually think while you learned.
-
I think it's a shame when people put the cart before the horse when they learn. Ask questions, yes, but do not jump to conclusions.
-
...COMPLETELY understand...
It would be a shame if you were to actually think while you learned.
Understanding requires thought, and lots of it.
-
I think that you have to appreciate that while you are learning, you start from the ground up. That means that there are some things which at the beginning you have to take as read, because the details of why they are true will be beyond the stage you are currently at and will be explained later.
Asking questions while learning is excellent, but asking questions about advanced concepts while you are trying to master the basics is a recipe for disaster.
This can be incredibly frustrating, because if you are an intelligent, enquiring individual you will always want to go further than you have been taught. The only real advice is to take the time to learn the basics. A lot of what you are questioning now will be explained as you advance; this is purely because once you understand the foundations, you can begin to understand the entire building.
It may well be that as you advance you discover something entirely new and unexpected. I hope you do, because that is how knowledge moves forward. But remember that your new theory has to explain things that have already been observed. And understanding how observed things work the way we think they do takes a lot of work.
It sounds to me like you have an enquiring mind, and a willingness to challenge the received wisdom. If you can combine that with study and understanding (not necessarily acceptance) of the way things are viewed today, you have an incredibly bright future ahead of you. I wish you all the best.
-
I have to add that the only part of the conversation in the OP that was flawed was
- Me: "Why are you so intolerant towards alternative earth's shape models?"
- He: "Because it was completely evidenced that earth is a sphere, the man went to the moon, and so we can't contest this."
- Me: "Well, there was noticed a number of failures in moon landing images, I think it's fake."
- He: "It's not the only proof. It was proved with several tests associated to perspective, reflection, shadow and many other physic phenomenons. This thing you are talking about is nonsense."
- Me: "But these are not my statements only. I have already told you about a group called the Flat Earth Society, which believes that nobody proved that the earth is round yet. I think you should take a look on their site..."
- He: "I will not take any look. I can see: this should be a lot of fanciful and irrational statements. I can't think on a flat earth..."
- Me: "It is owned by a guy named Daniel Shenton since years ago."
- He: "Who is that Daniel Shenton? Had he ever speech? Where is he?"
- Me: "He occasionaly posts on the Internet."
- He: "On the Internet? You should be cient that the Internet is full of bullshit."
- Me: "But there are many users in their forums with serious and consistent theories, and..."
- He: "If you want to discuss earth's shape, go back to 600 years ago, go talk with Galileo Galilei. Flat Earth is a myth, used historically by the pope and other individuals to hidden things from people."
- Me: "Anyway, I think you shoud be more open to new ideas. I don't believe completely in these theories about a flat earth. I think it's improbable, but not impossible."
- He: "No, it's impossible. Do not try to retake solved debates of the past..."
- Me: "Ok, teacher. I have to go for now. Bye."
This is too far from the truth to simply dismiss. There are many users, yes, but most of them believe the Earth is round, and the few that might believe it's flat do not have any serious - let alone consistent - theories. It's no surprise that each flat Earther has their own version of a flat Earth theory, and each theory is significantly different from the other.
-
The best advice ITT is for the physics instructor to read ENaG. It's at least a start needed for him to be included in a statistical sampling of the Earths population choosing FET or RET.
Without exposure to FET, an individual should not even comment on a FET/RET choice. When making claims of FET/RET population estimates, the number of RET believers is grossly exaggerated because of this oversight.
At the end of the Earth shape decision dilemma process, matadors with the true answer await in the arena of knowledge. These are the FET proponents awaiting the arrival of RET believers that are in the final phase of their waning belief system.
Like Pamplona except it is the running of the mules. RET believers can be intelligent but are so stubborn and fixed in believing what they are told is true. Armed with indisputable evidence, the matadors will put to rest any remaining doubts the RET believers have, once they have finished their arduous run and finally arrive in the arena of knowledge.
-
The best advice ITT is for the physics instructor to read ENaG. It's at least a start needed for him to be included in a statistical sampling of the Earths population choosing FET or RET.
I think that a physics teacher's head would explode from all of the scientific errors, misconceptions and misrepresentations in ENaG.
-
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
[/quote]
He could ask that same exact question.
-
The best advice ITT is for the physics instructor to read ENaG. It's at least a start needed for him to be included in a statistical sampling of the Earths population choosing FET or RET.
I think that a physics teacher's head would explode from all of the scientific errors, misconceptions and misrepresentations in ENaG.
It's hard to stomach all the religious talk too.
-
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
He could ask that same exact question.
[/quote]
NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.
-
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
He could ask that same exact question.
NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.
[/quote]
Nonsense. You can see the ISS from the earth. It is real and for you to see as well.
-
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
He could ask that same exact question.
NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.
Nonsense. You can see the ISS from the earth. It is real and for you to see as well.
[/quote]
You can see something, but that doesn't mean its the ISS or that its orbiting.
-
Also interesting that he accuses flat earth theory of being a conspiracy. If that is the case, ask him, "What would they gain from hiding the shape of the earth from people?".
He could ask that same exact question.
NASA isn't hiding the shape of the Earth. It's hiding its own lack of spaceflight. Let's not go down this road. I don't feel like having a conspiracy argument.
Nonsense. You can see the ISS from the earth. It is real and for you to see as well.
You can see something, but that doesn't mean its the ISS or that its orbiting.
[/quote]
You can see it clearly using a telescope, many people have done so (including myself). It is orbiting, since it does not have any sort of wing. Also if it were high in the sky, the ISS would need constant propulsion. This would be impossible to achieve.
(http://alpo-j.asahikawa-med.ac.jp/kk09/o090429a4.jpg)
-
My God, does nobody know how to fix quotes? I know I started it, but still. Have some decency.
Anyway, I'm not getting into a conspiracy argument. The search function is usually operational, as are the FAQ and Wiki.
-
You can see something, but that doesn't mean its the ISS or that its orbiting.
You can see it clearly using a telescope, many people have done so (including myself). It is orbiting, since it does not have any sort of wing. Also if it were high in the sky, the ISS would need constant propulsion. This would be impossible to achieve.
[/quote]
Whoever you got this image from needs to work on their photoshopping skills. See NASA's website for much better artwork than this.
-
Whoever you got this image from needs to work on their photoshopping skills. See NASA's website for much better artwork than this.
Yup. Because a random person taking a picture through their telescope has a lot of incentive to make up the space station. You'd think if they did that, they'd have made it clearer, to show off their impressive telescoping skills.
And yes, I just made 'telescope' a verb. So what?
Anyway, interesting that photographic evidence isn't accepted. What, I wonder, is, then? I mean, if you won't take people's word for it, and you won't take pictures, are you going to get your own telescope and look for yourself?