The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?

  • 130 Replies
  • 33080 Views
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #90 on: April 06, 2006, 09:52:49 AM »
Gentlemen.....yes, that's right, I'm referring to Erasmus and cheesejoff.

It wasn't my intention to throw Schroeder's cat amongst the pigeons, but now that he's out of his box and clearly alive, it seems that I may have inadvertently stumbled upon a remarkable, albeit quite silly, approach to this dilemma. What I'm getting from you learned folk is that if we all agree to not look at the earth simultaneously, there's a bloody good chance that it is round. Of course, it may also be shaped like a banana, but there's really no need to give anyone unnecessary ideas for a new website.

Alternatively, if everyone else looks away or closes their eyes, and only I look out the window, the old girl suddenly becomes flat, Like A Pancake. Yes, what? Oh, sorry, I thought somebody called my name....

So, therefore, the same might be said for the Ice Wall. If we were all to simultaneously look at the Ice Wall, it would collapse down onto the "one." I know for sure that I don't want to be the "one" whom the Ice Wall collapses on, so I'm suggesting that it might be best if none of us ever look at the Ice Wall. Under these conditions, the Ice Wall would then assume it's status as waves of possibility, and won't ever collapse. Waves of Ice that don't ever collapse. Is that not the most beautiful and poetic description of the Ice Wall you've ever heard?

Thank goodness for Quantum Physics. It is helping to make so many things clearer. I only wish I had more than a Kansas farmboy's understanding of it.  

Regards, L.A.P.

(P.S. I'm not a Kansas farmboy, that was more poetic license.....)
t's flat, and that's that......

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #91 on: April 06, 2006, 12:23:06 PM »
Quote
I only wish I had more than a Kansas farmboy's understanding of it.


I'm from a small town in Kansas.  Not all of us are completely ignorant.  In fact, my best friend is really smart and is at West Point as we speak.
ooyakasha!

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #92 on: April 06, 2006, 07:43:43 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote
I only wish I had more than a Kansas farmboy's understanding of it.


I'm from a small town in Kansas.  Not all of us are completely ignorant.  In fact, my best friend is really smart and is at West Point as we speak.


Ok, point taken. I am happy to change it to "Latvian farmboy." I do this with no ill intent toward any Latvians with really smart friends.


L.A.P.
t's flat, and that's that......

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #93 on: April 06, 2006, 10:58:26 PM »
Thank you, good sir.
ooyakasha!

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
Ice Wall
« Reply #94 on: April 08, 2006, 11:47:26 PM »
I apologize if this has already been stated, but I haven't the time to read through VII pages of peoples' idiotic ranting in order to see one or two intelligently written posts.

Anyhow, it is, indeed, made of ice (and snow), and we know this because people have been there. It's what most of you REers know as "Antarctica," and is quite vast. The reason no one's ever found the edge of the Earth is that the ice wall is vast and upsets compass directions (which usually always point to the centre of the Earth as "North") in such a way that it would be near-impossible to continue in the same direction long enough to find the edge of the Earth. Even then, let's say someone found it, now they have to somehow get back to shore, find their transportation back to the mainland, and tell us about it. And even then, it would do none of us any good as A: We'd almost certainly never be able to find it again, and B: Why would we want to, if it's only practical use is as a way for us to fall off the Earth and never be able to come back again? Perhaps if someone was feeling suicial, wanted to jump off the edge of the Earth, and was convicted enough to actually go and do it, it'd be useful, but other than that, really...

And before all the "Oo, oo, he said "Antarctica!" I have him now!" posts come out, let me refute both possible forms of attack on this idea: First, I never said Antarctica exists as you REers know it; I only said that you know it as that because people have been to the ice wall and have named it "Antarctica," calling it a continent and believing it to be the "South Pole" because they believed in a round Earth. Actually, it's neither, but, to the extent of what they had been taught, it was, indeed, the "South Pole." Second, no, sorry, no one's ever placed a flag at the south pole. Some fellow wanted to go find the pole, and, being unable to do so, shoved a flag into the ice wall and called it a "pole" so he would be revered as the first person to find the pole (which doesn't exist). Oh, and before the REers start shouting "Yet another conspiracy?!," no, there's only one of those. One man who wants fame and glory does not constitute a conspiracy.


--Chal

Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #95 on: April 09, 2006, 01:43:29 AM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
I apologize if this has already been stated, but I haven't the time to read through VII pages of peoples' idiotic ranting in order to see one or two intelligently written posts.

--Chal


Apology accepted.  Rest assured, you have in no way added to the one or two intelligently written posts.

Here is a couple of links you may find interesting.

http://www.southpolestation.com/

http://www.southpolestation.com/links.html

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #96 on: April 09, 2006, 03:17:36 AM »
Quote from: "Bongo"
http://www.southpolestation.com/

http://www.southpolestation.com/links.html


*shrugs*

That people may have bases on some areas of the ice wall, believing themselves to be at some sort of "pole," is a definite possibility. Anyone who asserts to be on any sort of pole, or asserts to have been to the exact point thereof, is speaking of the point at which the original glory hound shoved a flag into the snow. Honestly, I don't see how these people can assert such lunacy as there being a "pole," but then again, they're mainstream "scientists," so they're not trustworthy to begin with.

Perhaps they actually believe that nonsense, because of the fact that there was a flag shoved in there at one point in time, and that point was claimed to be the "South Pole." Now everyone who sees it believes they've found a "pole." Of course, in reality, the closest thing this planet has to a pole is it's centre point, (the REers' "North Pole"), which guides compasses to it as "North."

Oh, and by the way, if that's the closest thing you have to a rebuttal, bring it on.


--Chal

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2006, 03:27:56 AM »
Quote from: "LikeAPancake"
Of course, it may also be shaped like a banana, but there's really no need to give anyone unnecessary ideas for a new website.


Haha! :lol:  :lol:

Quote from: "LikeAPancake"

 so I'm suggesting that it might be best if none of us ever look at the Ice Wall. Under these conditions, the Ice Wall would then assume it's status as waves of possibility, and won't ever collapse. Waves of Ice that don't ever collapse. Is that not the most beautiful and poetic description of the Ice Wall you've ever heard?
 

Hm...well no one can see the ice wall anyway thanks to the UN security forces and there are no conclusive pictures of it so the Ice Wall is indeed a wave, if it exists.

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2006, 04:01:53 AM »
Quote from: "LikeAPancake"
Of course, it may also be shaped like a banana, but there's really no need to give anyone unnecessary ideas for a new website.


Hah! Hadn't seen that one before Cheese posted it; got almost as good a laugh out of that as when I'd heard it on Monty Python. :P  It makes about as much sense as the RE theory, but eh, it's fun to think about.

--Chal

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #99 on: April 09, 2006, 07:41:17 AM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
Quote from: "LikeAPancake"
Of course, it may also be shaped like a banana, but there's really no need to give anyone unnecessary ideas for a new website.


Hah! Hadn't seen that one before Cheese posted it; got almost as good a laugh out of that as when I'd heard it on Monty Python. :P  It makes about as much sense as the RE theory, but eh, it's fun to think about.

--Chal


Hahahahahahahahahaaaaa...........ha.............haha..................ha...........

What Python sketch was that?


L.A.P.
t's flat, and that's that......

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #100 on: April 09, 2006, 10:49:25 AM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
the ice wall is vast and upsets compass directions (which usually always point to the centre of the Earth as "North") in such a way that it would be near-impossible to continue in the same direction long enough to find the edge of the Earth.


So, since you claim to have been convinced by FE arguments, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that being rational is something that's important to you.

First off, do you agree that the ice wall in FE theory is merely a hypothetical entity; if nobody has been to the edge of the wall and seen that it is indeed the rim of the world, and returned to tell the tale, then we have no direct evidence that it is, in fact, a wall of ice that circles the rim of the world and keeps the oceans in?  Rather, you must agree, it is an explanatory conveniece, assumed to be correct so that the rest of the theory can hold together, but otherwise unjustified.

That being said, why exactly do you believe that being on the ice wall upsets compasses?  Is this simply another convenient explanatory device, preventing the collapse of other parts of the theory?  Or is there a variety of reports detailing expeditions to different parts of the ice wall, complaining about the difficulties of navigation due to loss of compass effectiveness?

Furthermore, do you realize that there are other methods of navigation than the compass?  It is not argued by FE proponents that GPS works, merely the means by which it works.  One could navigate across Antarctica using GPS.  Aside from GPS, pilots in airplanes could navigate by dead-reckoning, using airspeed and gyroscopes to find their way.  Lastly, celestial navigation -- whose effectiveness is also, as far as I know, not disputed by FE theory -- can be used to find the south pole.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that there exist images, long-exposure images, and videos of the southern celestial hemisphere -- constellations not visible from the northern hemisphere -- taken from the
south pole.

In summation, why do you believe that these claims are true?  What evidence do you have?

Quote
B: Why would we want to,


Presumably for the same reason you are here on this forum: a desire to know and share the truth about the nature of the universe.

Quote
Actually, it's neither, but, to the extent of what they had been taught, it was, indeed, the "South Pole." Second, no, sorry, no one's ever placed a flag at the south pole. Some fellow wanted to go find the pole, and, being unable to do so, shoved a flag into the ice wall and called it a "pole" so he would be revered as the first person to find the pole (which doesn't exist).


This is called "begging the question": your argument for the nonexistence of the south pole is, essentially, that the south pole does not exist.  Therefore any evidence that it does exist must be in some way fake.  Drop the assumption that your answer is the correct one, and suddenly you have no particularly compelling reason to believe that the evidence is fake.

Maintain the assumption that your answer is correct, and that arguing with that assumption as a premise is a good idea, and debate with you grows fairly tiresome and fruitless.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #101 on: April 10, 2006, 02:48:37 AM »
Quote from: "LikeAPancake"
What Python sketch was that?


Holy Grail

"...and that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped!"

"Why, that's fascinating...!"

Quote from: "Erasmus"
...do you agree that the ice wall in FE theory is merely a hypothetical entity; if nobody has been to the edge of the wall and seen that it is indeed the rim of the world, and returned to tell the tale, then we have no direct evidence that it is, in fact, a wall of ice that circles the rim of the world and keeps the oceans in?


Actually, people have seen the edge of the Earth. It was reported in the Bible that someone saw the "four corners of the Earth." This leads me to believe that the Earth was, at one time, not only flat, but a (heavily deranged (explained shortly)) square (or rectangle), as well, and that there was a point from which one could see all the way across it.

The most reasonable explanation for what he saw then and the way things are now is that the Earth changed a bit over time. Most likely the sides were already heavily curved, and they simply lost the four "corners" at one point as the sides moved slightly. Of course, for that matter, technically, it could still have four corners, with very heavily outwardly-curved sides.

Before people start mentioning my faith when they attempt to attack my using the Bible, I never said these people didn't see what the Bible says they did, I just said that many of the miraculous occurences were likely not done by the forces the Bible claims them to have been done by (ie, God or an agent thereof). That's not to say they didn't happen, weren't supernatural, or that these people are in any way wrong about what they saw or recorded.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
That being said, why exactly do you believe that being on the ice wall upsets compasses?


People have, indeed, reported loss of compass effectiveness when they believed themselves to near the "poles." Both of them. As an FEer, of course, I don't believe in poles, but that doesn't mean that I discount their observances. I take them to mean that, when deep in the ice wall or near the centre of the Earth, compasses begin to go haywire. Regardless of RE or FE orientation, this point is indisputable. Replace "Ice Wall" with "South Pole," and "Centre of the Earth" with "North Pole," and I should have full RE agreement on this point. I never said these places REers speak of don't exist, and that phenomena that happen there aren't real, I just said that they're not precisely what REers say they are.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Furthermore, do you realize that there are other methods of navigation than the compass?  It is not argued by FE proponents that GPS works, merely the means by which it works.  One could navigate across Antarctica using GPS.  Aside from GPS, pilots in airplanes could navigate by dead-reckoning, using airspeed and gyroscopes to find their way.


I have an answer, but putting it into words is proving a difficult task. I'll get back to you on this one ASAP.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Lastly, celestial navigation -- whose effectiveness is also, as far as I know, not disputed by FE theory -- can be used to find the south pole.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that there exist images, long-exposure images, and videos of the southern celestial hemisphere -- constellations not visible from the northern hemisphere -- taken from the south pole.


That's because constellations not visible anywhere else can be seen from the ice wall. Remember, in FE, the stars are not nearly as far from Earth as RE indicates. This is similar to the phenomenon that governs day and night.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote
B: Why would we want to,


Presumably for the same reason you are here on this forum: a desire to know and share the truth about the nature of the universe.


True. I suppose I was speaking from the view and on behalf of the average person, who likely wouldn't care either way (unless, as I said, they wished, for whatever reason, to jump off the edge).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
This is called "begging the question": your argument for the nonexistence of the south pole is, essentially, that the south pole does not exist.  Therefore any evidence that it does exist must be in some way fake.  Drop the assumption that your answer is the correct one, and suddenly you have no particularly compelling reason to believe that the evidence is fake.


Similarly, present any FE idea to an RE scientist and they'll immediately attempt to reconcile it with RE in the manner described above.


Quote from: "Erasmus"
In summation, why do you believe that these claims are true?  What evidence do you have?


See above.

I must say, Erasmus, I'm enjoying debating you already. It's always nice to see intelligent, non-flamers on the RE side.


--Chal

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #102 on: April 10, 2006, 12:11:13 PM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
Actually, people have seen the edge of the Earth. It was reported in the Bible that someone saw the "four corners of the Earth."


This is something we ought to clear up right away.  I don't think that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, especially not evidence to be taken literally.  If you're going to insist on using it, then I am going to insist that photographs of the Earth allegedly taken from space are at least equally valid.

That being said, in the middle ages, commoners would sometimes be drawn and quartered as punishment for treason; their arms and legs would be cut off, and these appendages sent to the "four corners of the kingdom".  Nobody believed that the kingdom was a quadrilateral.

Furthermore, FE theory does not claim that the Earth is a quadrilateral, nor, I believe, did the author of the Biblical phrase "four corners of the Earth".  It is commonly assumed that this refers merely to places mutually far from one another, often in the four cardinal directions.

But to reiterate, if you will continue using the Bible, then I will simple boggle at your unacceptance of photographic evidence, and our debate will quickly stagnate.

Quote
People have, indeed, reported loss of compass effectiveness when they believed themselves to near the "poles." Both of them.


I'm aware of this.  And how far were these people from the relevant magnetic poles when the loss of compass effectiveness was discovered?

Quote
That's because constellations not visible anywhere else can be seen from the ice wall. Remember, in FE, the stars are not nearly as far from Earth as RE indicates. This is similar to the phenomenon that governs day and night.


The burden is on you to provide a complete explanation of these phenomena.  In the absence of a complete phenomenon, a partial one will do temporarily.  Thus far, FE has utterly failed to provide any explanation.

However, the mere presence of southern celestial constellations is not the only observable phenomenon.  A camera oriented towards the south celestial pole and left on long exposure, or a video of the southern sky, will both reveal that constellations circle a point in the clockwise direction.  In the northern hemisphere, the same effect is observable -- except that the constellations are different, and the rotation of the sky is in the counterclockwise direction.  Furthermore, the transition from northern constellations to southern -- and from counterclockwise to clockwise -- is a smooth one as the observer travels south from the northern hemisphere.  The simplest explanation for this is that the celestial sphere is indeed a sphere.  FE offers no explanation as to why this observation is possible on a flat Earth; feel free to offer your own.

Quote
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This is called "begging the question":


Similarly, present any FE idea to an RE scientist and they'll immediately attempt to reconcile it with RE in the manner described above.


Such as myself?  I beg to differ.  My objections to FE ideas are rooted in observations not explained by FE, or with epistemological complaints about the soundness of FE methodology.

Quote
Quote from: "Erasmus"
What evidence do you have?


See above.


To summarize:

1)  You believe the Earth has a rim because the Bible mentions the phrase "four corners of the Earth."
2)  You believe the south pole / ice wall is unnavigable because of compass instability near the magnetic poles.

Just want to be clear on what you believe passes for evidence.

Quote
I must say, Erasmus, I'm enjoying debating you already. It's always nice to see intelligent, non-flamers on the RE side.


Likewise.  But I fear we may soon reach an impasse if we cannot come to an agreement about what consitutes good science.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #103 on: April 10, 2006, 12:20:32 PM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
It was reported in the Bible that someone saw the "four corners of the Earth."


Can you provide the exact Biblical reference?  I am acquainted with a Hebrew speaker, and we can perhaps get a second opinion on the translation from the Tanach.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #104 on: April 10, 2006, 12:51:57 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Chaltier"
It was reported in the Bible that someone saw the "four corners of the Earth."


Can you provide the exact Biblical reference?  I am acquainted with a Hebrew speaker, and we can perhaps get a second opinion on the translation from the Tanach.

-Erasmus


The bible passages are:

Is. 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth...

Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

However there is a thread on this on these very forums:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18

It's a very long thread so hit find and search for 'four'.

To summarise it , the word "kanaph" can mean compass points rather than corners.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #105 on: April 10, 2006, 02:44:11 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
The bible passages are:

Is. 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth...

Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
...

To summarise it , the word "kanaph" can mean compass points rather than corners.


Well done, joffie :)

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #106 on: April 10, 2006, 08:04:33 PM »
All very good arguments. This is going to take a while to respond to, and I don't have the time right away. This is simply so you don't think I'm ignoring the reply.

Oh, and I'm sorry if you thought I was targetting you specifically with my RE scientists statement. I was referring to mainstream RE scientists in general, not to mention less-informed REers (though I hadn't stated the latter. Sorry for the mix-up.


--Chal

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #107 on: April 11, 2006, 12:55:45 AM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
Oh, and I'm sorry if you thought I was targetting you specifically with my RE scientists statement. I was referring to mainstream RE scientists in general, not to mention less-informed REers (though I hadn't stated the latter. Sorry for the mix-up.


Try to understand the position of mainstream RE scientists.  They spend eleven or twelve years in postsecondary school studying and contributing to a mainsteam field, before they get their Ph.D.  Many of them encounter objections to mainstream science at some point, address them, and move on.  They all learn the philosophy of science.  They get jobs working in the field, and actually make progress based on assuming that mainstream science is at least sorta-kinda correct.  The kind of progress that often can be used to make predictions that they can go out into the field and test.  They actually find evidence that continues to prop up (though they admit never *prove* prove) their theories.

Then along comes somebody who says the Earth is flat.  They dismiss these claims out of hand, not because they're not interested in challenges to their ideas, but because they've already been through rigor in demonstrating their own ideas, and its so clear FEism isn't compatible with their ideas or their philosophy, and that furthermore it lacks any semblance of rigor.  Yes, they assume their answers are the correct ones when responding to FE claims.  But it's the same way that you assume that when you turn around, purple dragons don't materialize behind your back.

Maybe a better analogy is when you bring your car to the mechanic with the complaint that it won't start, because, you believe, of some gnomes that have gotten in and are screwing around.  He explains that the thing that's really wrong with it is that the Recombinatory Reflex Rotofroodle is out of alignment.  You assure him that no, it's the gnomes.  Sigh, he says, look, I've got a busy schedule; your theory is really interesting, but this is what I do.  I'm pretty sure that it's the Rotofroodle.  Do you want me to fix it or not?

You and I have the luxury to sit back and argue about whether the Earth is flat or round.  Mainstream scientists usually do not.  I've glimpsed their lives; they have too many *actually* unanswered questions to take the time out to go back and answer ones that were answered centuries ago.  They're not interested in FE's objections.

You on the other hand, as a patron of this debate, really have no similar excuse for arguing in circles.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #108 on: April 11, 2006, 05:43:33 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
This is something we ought to clear up right away.  I don't think that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, especially not evidence to be taken literally.


Well, do understand my position: I am an history major, and thus I think like an historian, not a scientist. It's part of what I do, and love doing, to take what people of old have said and trying to make sense out of them. This very heavily involves coming up with theories, and these theories can be very difficult to ever prove for facts, but are thereafter taken as such (with a sort of "trust but verify" attitude). Some historians like to be incredibly skeptical of past accounts until they've "proven" it, or at least have sufficient evidence. Others, in who's camp I put myself (though I'm not an historian yet), don't take these people for morons until they have sufficient proof against them, especially if they only have one account of an event. I don't consider myself smarter than these people were as a matter of course, and I certainly don't know more about their world than they did, so the best one can do is trust these accounts, checking out the ones we can, and putting the others into the perspective created by the evidence we have and the beliefs about them and the world that we hold, either fitting them in, altering something for them, or throwing them out.

In the case of the Bible, we really have no other accounts of these specific "four corners of the Earth" statements because no one else was there, or if someone was, they didn't write anything. While I don't take the book literally by any means (as it's a religious text of a faith I'm not partial to), I do take these peoples' accounts from the view of an historian using the method described above. And, believing the world to be flat, I do not discount flat-Earth ideas. Of course, not believing Earth to be quadrilateral, I must either A: Discount the idea entirely, or B: Assume it was possibly quadrilateral at one time. Even if I were to discount it, of course, I'd still create a theory or two for B, so don't necessarily assume I believe every last hypothetical situation I offer (unless I say I do, of course).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
That being said, in the middle ages, commoners would sometimes be drawn and quartered as punishment for treason; their arms and legs would be cut off, and these appendages sent to the "four corners of the kingdom".  Nobody believed that the kingdom was a quadrilateral.


Aye, but now we're speaking in English. Let's grab the word in the original language, shall we?

Quote from: "cheesejoff"
...the word "kanaph" can mean compass points rather than corners.


I'm not relying too heavily on any statement that claims the Earth to be a quadrilateral anyway, as I think it a circle, but you've got to do better than that. The compass didn't exist in the Judeo-Christian world at the time of the Bible's writing. The earlist known compass was invented in China, somewhere between 200BC and 200AD, but the Europeans didn't get them for over another thousand years. One could argue that by "compass points" they simply mean "in all directions," of course, in which case it becomes believable. Regardless, a better word than "compass" could be used unless you do specifically mean the navigational device known as a "compass," in which case your argument is invalid due to the device's nonexistance at the time.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Furthermore, FE theory does not claim that the Earth is a quadrilateral, nor, I believe, did the author of the Biblical phrase "four corners of the Earth".  It is commonly assumed that this refers merely to places mutually far from one another, often in the four cardinal directions.


That's how we use it now. I'd like to see how they meant it then, in their language, before I can be sure of that. The translation, of course, also must be checked out. Still, however, I don't consider that statement a necessary part of my argument.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote
People have, indeed, reported loss of compass effectiveness when they believed themselves to near the "poles." Both of them.


I'm aware of this.  And how far were these people from the relevant magnetic poles when the loss of compass effectiveness was discovered?


Reasonably close to directly on them, as I recall. Just go to the centre of the Earth to see that. But remember our belief of the ice wall opposed to RE's Antarctica. (Some FEers hold that it's simply a huge wall, an idea with which I disagree (go south, and you see more than a wall), so I will be using my version of the ice wall.) If you unfold the RE globe to make the FE map, you'd unfold it at the "South Pole" point on said globe (Note:This may not make a perfect FE map. I'm not an expert on mapmaking. But either way, it doesn't affect this argument.). In other words, now we have this compass disruption deep in the ice wall around the entirety of the Earth's edge. It would make sense, at least to me, to assume that this disruption has a wider area than the RE model allows, but that's beside the point either way.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
The burden is on you to provide a complete explanation of these phenomena.  In the absence of a complete phenomenon, a partial one will do temporarily.  Thus far, FE has utterly failed to provide any explanation.


Well, I am not and don't claim to be a physicist or astronomer, so this may be difficult. The FE belief is, of course, that the sun orbits the centre of the Earth on the equator. I don't think there's anything special about the equator, it's just there because that's what the sun rotates above, so that leaves the centre of the Earth. I would assume it has some unique magnetic properties (even if only on the basis of compass disruption), and that there may be other magnetic forces active from various angles, keeping it in place. Again, I'm unable to explain any of these phenomena in their entirety for lack of being any sort of physicist or astronomer.

I do realize that inability to explain a phenomenon creates a weakness in my positon, however, if you put an REer with my level of training in physics and astronomy in your place, and I debated him, he'd be in no better position to explain his RE physics than I am in explaining my own. It is in debate, as proven in a court of law, that a position may be believed or disbelieved based solely on the skill of the debaters, regardless of any factual nature, and I do know that I'm not as skilled in debate or some of the fields that would be required to answer such a question as I could be. So I must, for now, at least, abstain from giving a full answer for lack of proper ability, and assert that, on the bases provided, this hasn't weakened my position, at least any more or less than it would weaken the RE position under the same circumstances, as my temporary defence.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
However, the mere presence of southern celestial constellations is not the only observable phenomenon.  A camera oriented towards the south celestial pole and left on long exposure, or a video of the southern sky, will both reveal that constellations circle a point in the clockwise direction.  In the northern hemisphere, the same effect is observable -- except that the constellations are different, and the rotation of the sky is in the counterclockwise direction. ... FE offers no explanation as to why this observation is possible on a flat Earth; feel free to offer your own.


The best I can offer for now is that the same phenomenon that governs the sun's movement governs that of the stars. Of course there would be stars only visible in one particular hemisphere, as, in FE, they rotate closer to the Earth than RE would have us believe, and they likely rotate directly over, or at least staying very close to, a single line (one for each star, that is). Other than that, I must refer you again to my previous paragraph to explain my inability to answer this for the time being.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
...{I} want to be clear on what you believe passes for evidence.


I do take historical accounts seriously, often more seriously than so-called "scientific explanations." If someone sees something, and a scientist subsequently tells him that no, he didn't, because no such thing exists, who was right? Of course, the person that saw it.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
...I fear we may soon reach an impasse if we cannot come to an agreement about what consitutes good science.


Hm, perhaps. I do take historical accounts far more seriously than you, I can tell, and you take mainstream science far more seriously than I.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Try to understand the position of mainstream RE scientists.


I didn't want to quote that entire post, so simply consider the above to represent said post in it's entirety.

You do present an interesting insight, and yes, I've no doubt that a great many of these scientists actually are like this. But you must remember that at least some of these people are, as I've asserted before, part of the conspiracy. Now, I'm not one to go asserting that everything I disagree with is a conspiracy, hence why I shun the standard FE government conspiracy theory (it's just too big), and don't blame everything I can't explain on the one I've asserted exists. However, that a select group of mainstream scientists are running a conspiracy, keeping the governments, people, and many of their fellow scientists duped, is more believable than all the governments (including warring ones) being in on it, and it also has at least one motive; that is, the desire to be kept on top (if they accepted FE, either they'd lose the respect of the masses or the pro-FE scientists from before this acceptance took place would become the "top scientists in the world"). If there are others, we're unaware of them (if we knew, it'd be all too easy to break the conspiracy). Conspiracies involving a few people in a large mainstream group aren't too uncommon, though I must say the effect of this one can be much more widely seen, as they've duped far more people than their own subscribers and a few outsiders.

Hm, it appears this reply is far from complete, but as I'm out of time for the moment, I'll present it as-is and see what happens.


--Chal

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2006, 11:44:52 AM »
Hokay!

Quote from: "Chaltier"
It's part of what I do, and love doing, to take what people of old have said and trying to make sense out of them.


A rational position, I believe.  It means you are a Scholastic whereas I would probably be better characterized as a Sceptic, at least insofar as I am interested in uncovering truth.

Quote
Others, in who's camp I put myself (though I'm not an historian yet), don't take these people for morons until they have sufficient proof against them, especially if they only have one account of an event.


I certainly don't take Biblical authors as morons or lunatics, just as I don't take people who claim to have crossed Antarctica as morons or lunatics.  However, if somebody two thousand years from now found a copy of 1984 (with the front and back cover and title page etc. destroyed) I would hope they would not take it for historical fact.  Ditto for any books by Dr. Seuss.

Certainly as a person who endeavors to understand history -- an unquestionably virtuous pursuit -- you agree that understanding context is essential.  Only if you assume that the more FE-sympathetic portions of the Bible need to be taken in a literal historical context do you find that the Bible is an argument for FEism.  If, on the other hand, you take its mysticism as social message rather than as a record of observations, then while you lose a bit of "history", you gain a *great* deal of understanding of a culture, and of culture in general, which as knowledge is probably almost as treasured by you as facts are.

Quote
In the case of the Bible, we really have no other accounts of these specific "four corners of the Earth" statements because no one else was there,


Case in point: you don't know that this was an account, though your wording implies the assumption.  I have argued elsewhere that the Bible has passages which could not have been accounts of events, but were added for literary or theological value (cf. the Garden of Gethsemene).

Quote
Quote from: "Erasmus"
"four corners of the kingdom"


Aye, but now we're speaking in English. Let's grab the word in the original language, shall we?


Indeed we are, just as those who translated the Bible into English were speaking English.

Quote
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
...the word "kanaph" can mean compass points rather than corners.

The compass didn't exist in the Judeo-Christian world at the time of the Bible's writing. ... One could argue that by "compass points" they simply mean "in all directions," of course, in which case it becomes believable.


Indeed, "compass points" refers to "cardinal directions", which certainly did exist at the time.

Quote
I don't consider that statement [about the four corners] a necessary part of my argument.


Brackets mine.  Great, then let's forget about it entirely, but I certainly feel it supports your argument in no way.

Quote
Quote from: "Erasmus"
The burden is on you to provide a complete explanation of these phenomena.  In the absence of a complete phenomenon, a partial one will do temporarily.  Thus far, FE has utterly failed to provide any explanation.


Well, I am not and don't claim to be a physicist or astronomer, so this may be difficult.


More importantly, by your claim, you are not a scientist of any bent.  It is likely then that you are unaware of a certain debate that has raged constantly in science: that of determining what sorts of theories are good, and what are bad.  The ancients were interested in the explanatory power of their theories.  They believed theory A was better than theory B only case that A explained more than B per unit complexity.  That is, If A is "simpler" (which often means "more aesthetically pleasing" but can also mean "easier to explain to a layman) than B but explains the same phenomena, A is better.  If A and B are equally simple, but A explains more, then A is better.

Since Popper, however, scientists agree that theories are better that make more falsifiable predictions, assuming that the theories in question have not been refuted.

FE, as described by Charles Johnson, is not justifiable under Popperian metric (I would argue, not under the Aristotelian metric either).  All it does is explain the way world is.  It makes no predictions that we can test -- we can't go to the ice wall, because of how far it is, or how difficult the journey is, or because we can't navigate, or because the government will stop us.  We can't go into space for the same reason.  Any time a test for FE is proposed, FEers rearrange their beliefs so that the test will not work.  So you really, you can believe it or RE; there is no way to tell the difference.

Conclusion: the only thing FE prides itself on is its explanatory power.  Any loss of explanatory power would be devastating to the philosophy propping up the theory; it would be tantamount to a modern, Popperian scientist claiming that you, Chaltier, have a purple dragon living in your garage, but it becomes invisible and undetectable whenever you open the door.

That being said, I should reiterate that several scientific tests have been proposed on these fora that would refute the FE, and can be performed will tools available to the common man.

Quote
I do realize that inability to explain a phenomenon creates a weakness in my positon, however, if you put an REer with my level of training in physics and astronomy in your place, and I debated him, he'd be in no better position to explain his RE physics than I am in explaining my own.


This implies that there is somebody who understands FE science to a much greater degree than you, who has published his ideas, which you have absorbed only indirectly.  This FE scientist could explain his beliefs to a debate opponent in a way you could not.

As it turns out, no such person exists, or ever has.

Quote
The best I can offer for now is that the same phenomenon that governs the sun's movement governs that of the stars.


Entirely plausible.  However, that this in no way explains the circular motion of stars around a point in the sky being opposite in opposite hemidiscs.  Nor does it explain  why the stars rotate around different points in the sky in different hemidiscs -- different in the sense that the nearby constellations are entirely dissimilar.

In other words, assuming that the stars revolve around the Earth's central axis, as the sun does, please explain why they appear to revolve in a different direction depending on which hemidisc I am in.  Pictures would be invaluable here: more for you than for me.

Quote
Of course there would be stars only visible in one particular hemisphere, as, in FE, they rotate closer to the Earth than RE would have us believe,


As it turns out, there is a robust methods for measuring distances to celestial bodies, practically by the naked eye.  I strongly suggest you investigate the notion of parallax.

Quote
and they likely rotate directly over, or at least staying very close to, a single line (one for each star, that is).


Could you clarify this suggestion?  Which line is a given star close to?  One perpendicular to the plane of the Earth and intersecting the Earth at a fixed point?

Quote
If someone sees something, and a scientist subsequently tells him that no, he didn't, because no such thing exists, who was right? Of course, the person that saw it.


"Of course"?  Is this statement meant to be as blanket as it sounds?  How do you account for optical illusions (of the purely physiological sort), mirages, hallucinations, and the like?  Science is sometimes much more powerful at knowing what a person is really seeing than is that person himself.

If a scientist walking down the street overhears a person saying, "I saw a copy of the Gospel of Ethel," and the scientists bursts in with, "no such things exists," then certainly that scientist is being foolish; what does he know of the Gospel of Ethel?  This circumstance, however, is a straw man.  What if the claim were, "I saw a superstring"?  Would the scientist be wrong in saying, "No, you didn't?"  What if it were, "I saw a flying unicorn," or better yet, "I developed a compass-and-straightedge construction for the trisection of an arbitrary angle"?

What if the person were blind?

Quote
I do take historical accounts far more seriously than you, I can tell, and you take mainstream science far more seriously than I.


I think I do not take historical accounts as sceptically as you think I do, when the accounts are

1)  Coherent
2)  Internally consistent
3)  Externally consistent
4)  Intended as historical accounts

I am will to be flexible -- to different degrees -- on all of these requirements.  The relevent passages in the Bible, however, fail on points 3 and 4.

Do you have a particular gripe about mainstream science?  It is not really fair for you to simultaneously claim not to understand science, and yet refuse to take it seriously.  It is possible that the former is the cause of the latter.

Quote
But you must remember that at least some of these people are, as I've asserted before, part of the conspiracy.


This is an untenable position, aside from the fact that you have not provided any reason to believe this to be the case other than that it conflicts with your desire to believe in a certain hypothesis.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that your impression of the academic community is that there are Twelve Invisible Masters who have final say on the publication of all results, along with the power to modify any findings before publication.  Furthermore, there is (I believe, in your view) a hierarchy of priestlike individuals shuttling dogma from the Twelve down to the lowly acolytes working in labs, and they frequently save the Twelve the trouble of punishing heretics in the ranks by doing it themselves.  I think this is a sadly common view of academia.

Trust me; it is not so.  The community is in fact very open and dynamic.  People are for the most part quite rational and when presented with evidence refuting the ideas -- after an agonizing struggle to save their brainchild -- concede the loss.  I personally have been on both sides of such exchanges, both with fellow students and with professors.

No small group of scientists could prevent the community at large from discovering that the Earth was flat.

Bringing this post to a close, I'd like to touch on scepticism vs. scholasticism again.  Neither position is satisfactory on its own: the former is fruitless whereas the latter is blind.  Good scientists must give some credence to eyewitness accounts, just as good historians really must sort fact from fantasy and parable.  One of my favourite books is Foucault's Pendulum, by Umberto Eco; it examines the latter end of this spectrum in some depth, among other issues, and is otherwise an engaging novel.  I highly recommend it.

Keep in mind, however, that it is not an account of actual events.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2006, 11:39:36 PM »
Erasmus, please tell me you have better things to do in your life than argue for pages on this site, your being named after a wandering dutch scholar isn't very reassuring

?

aleron

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #111 on: April 13, 2006, 04:47:47 AM »
well that certainly was long ^^;

anyways regardless both isaiah and revelations quoted were prophecies... as the world was still thought of to be flat at the time it would make sense that they would interpret their prophecies in a way they could understand and make some sense of.

also all of this was recorded in formal speech, which would be somewhat altered for effect in the process.

as a note ends of the earth could be referring to the known world at the time. for there really was an "end" to the earth back then as much was left undiscovered and assumed to be nothingness beyond.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #112 on: April 13, 2006, 10:36:19 AM »
Quote from: "Tim the Enchanter"
Erasmus, please tell me you have better things to do in your life than argue for pages on this site, your being named after a wandering dutch scholar isn't very reassuring


Well, I certainly have things that are much, much more pressing in the short run... but that's probably exactly why I'm willing to spend so much time arguing on this forum.  Actually though I discovered yesterday that if I go to bed early and get up early, then I can argue as much as I like and still have enough time to get relevant work done.  It was neat!

In re long posts: my current impression of Chaltier is that
a)  He's worth debating things with
b)  He's willing to read/write long posts

Nobody else is participating in this debate on the level that he is, so I figure I'm taking all the right people's needs into account.

-wandering Dutch scholar

p.s. I'm not really Dutch.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
Re: Ice Wall
« Reply #113 on: April 13, 2006, 08:23:15 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
...if somebody two thousand years from now found a copy of 1984 (with the front and back cover and title page etc. destroyed) I would hope they would not take it for historical fact.  Ditto for any books by Dr. Seuss.


Considering the way things have been going for the past 60 years, I almost hope they take Dr. Seuss literally as an historical text; it'd likely be the only thing they'd have to make this period worthy of more than the utmost of ridicule in any reasonable historical text. :?

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Certainly as a person who endeavors to understand history -- an unquestionably virtuous pursuit -- you agree that understanding context is essential.


Of course, but it's often taken to ridiculous degrees. More often than I'd like to, I see books by historians ridiculing their predecessors, on things they didn't deserve in the least to be ridiculed, by attempting to distort the context argument for the seemingly sole purpose of sounding more intelligent on a given subject than said predecessor.

So, while context is important, it's very easy to manipulate with proper wording, so one must be very careful when attempting to put something into the proper context, making sure it indeed is the proper context.

Quote
Only if you assume that the more FE-sympathetic portions of the Bible need to be taken in a literal historical context do you find that the Bible is an argument for FEism.


Quite correct, but that same argument could be used for nearly any point in the Bible if you don't believe it, and to those who do, such arguments mean nothing.

Though, regardless of whatever argument is used for or against it, I can make a very strong case for the original writer of that passage having believed in a flat Earth, and likely that it had corners in the case of the earlier passage (the Mesopotamian model, in that case).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
...a *great* deal of understanding of a culture, and of culture in general, which as knowledge is probably almost as treasured by you as facts are.


Indeed, and in many cases moreso.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Case in point: you don't know that this was an account, though your wording implies the assumption.  I have argued elsewhere that the Bible has passages which could not have been accounts of events, but were added for literary or theological value (cf. the Garden of Gethsemene).


That's a blanket argument that many non-Christians use against any part of the Bible they please, at any time they please, and for any reason they please. Regardless of it's truth (and I'm not saying it's necessarily always wrong), it will be used and abused, and it becomes very difficult to tell whether it's being used to attempt to defend one's own position, or is actually a reasonable observation of the book.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
It is likely then that you are unaware of a certain debate that has raged constantly in science: that of determining what sorts of theories are good, and what are bad.  The ancients ... believed theory A was better than theory B only case that A explained more than B per unit complexity, [while explaining the same phenomenon]. ...

Since Popper, however, scientists agree that theories are better that make more falsifiable predictions, assuming that the theories in question have not been refuted.

(Brackets mine.)

Actually, I do know of this debate, and perhaps this is where we part ways when it comes to determining what constitutes good science. I've always subscribed to the former idea. When it comes to science, history, and many other things, I find many post-Greco-Roman ideas to be entirely absurd.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
FE, as described by Charles Johnson, is not justifiable under Popperian metric


Well, I don't subscribe to either of those belief systems (the Popperian system of science or FE as Johnson described it), but I suppose that if one takes one or the other seriously, there could be a whole new debate on that alone, which I'd rather get into elsewhere if at all (for one thing, this post is already too long, and it appears to be not even half done yet).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
That being said, I should reiterate that several scientific tests have been proposed on these fora that would refute the FE, and can be performed will tools available to the common man.


I've heard of these, however they've been "proven" by being tested under the inherent assumption that the Earth is round, and working under that assumption. Take away that assumption, and replace it with one stating the Earth is flat, then do the tests, and many of them don't work. So, does this mean that the Earth isn't flat, or that the tests don't actually work due to their dependency on the assumption of the Earth being round?

It seems that, at this point, the matter becomes entirely one of personal belief.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
This implies that there is somebody who understands FE science to a much greater degree than you


There are the previous FES leaders (all dead now), among a few others, who can explain FE theory and how it works with various phenomena far, far better than I, I'm sure.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
...assuming that the stars revolve around the Earth's central axis, as the sun does, please explain why they appear to revolve in a different direction depending on which hemidisc I am in. Pictures would be invaluable here: more for you than for me.


Pictures of...?

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Could you clarify this suggestion?  Which line is a given star close to? One perpendicular to the plane of the Earth and intersecting the Earth at a fixed point?


I was suggesting that there are nontangible lines (similar to the equator)  hich stars more or less follow exactly (they each have their own, of course).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
How do you account for optical illusions (of the purely physiological sort), mirages, hallucinations, and the like?


Simple. Let's assume a man sees an oasis in the desert that isn't actually there. The man does see an oasis, and any scientist who says otherwise is wrong. Why that man sees it or whether or not it's actually there are other matters entirely.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
What if it were, "I saw a flying unicorn[?]"


I would kindly ask said scientist to disprove this man's vision in full and beyond all doubt.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
What if the person were blind?


I would, equally kindly, ask the scientist to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that said person didn't have an oracular vision (in which, being a Roman pagan, I do indeed believe).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I think I do not take historical accounts as sceptically as you think I do, when the accounts are

1)  Coherent
2)  Internally consistent
3)  Externally consistent
4)  Intended as historical accounts

I am will to be flexible -- to different degrees -- on all of these requirements.  The relevent passages in the Bible, however, fail on points 3 and 4.


Perhaps, but they do have that annoying little premise of being directly from God, so you'll have people saying that they don't need to follow those rules because God > Consistency (though, in my opinion, a single, all-powerful, all-knowing God's consistency is a prerequisite for his existence).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Do you have a particular gripe about mainstream science[/scientists]?
(Brackets mine. It makes the following easier to word.)

Other than that I've essentially accused a large portion of them of conspiring against us? Well, in a word, yes. Their definition of good science, the arrogance of many of them in believing that science can do/solve anything, not to mention the arrogant attitude of many of their representatives (I rarely see a representative of the scientific community in the media whom I don't take for an arrogant ass after hearing what he has to say and how he says it), on top of their apparent vendetta against any idea that is to be taken on faith, is a bit of a turn off, I must admit.

However, that's not why I believe them to be the conspirers. It simply makes far more sense than (often-warring) governments conspiring together. Assume for a moment the position that you believe the Earth is flat, and that you believe the governments to be innocent. You're now faced with the dilemma of "Well, someone is conspiring to indoctrinate the world with RE dogma, so who could it be?" Who else than the scientists? They're the ones who write the science texts, make the machinery, actually go out and conduct the experiments (regardless of who's paying for it), and report findings to be shown to the world. On top of that, the governments can be duped by the scientists far more easily than the scientists can be kept quiet by the government. I hope that explains the conspiracy a bit more, and didn't simply come out as a badly-formed paragraph.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that your impression of the academic community is that there are Twelve Invisible Masters who have final say on the publication of all results, along with the power to modify any findings before publication.  Furthermore, there is (I believe, in your view) a hierarchy of priestlike individuals shuttling dogma from the Twelve down to the lowly acolytes working in labs, and they frequently save the Twelve the trouble of punishing heretics in the ranks by doing it themselves.


Well, I never thought of it quite that way, but something like that.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
People are for the most part quite rational and when presented with evidence refuting the ideas -- after an agonizing struggle to save their brainchild -- concede the loss.


It's unfortunate that FE is treated with such ridicule that we'll never get the chance to challenge them to that degree under the old system and find out.

These posts seem to be getting longer and longer. I'll try to abridge my next one a bit.


--Chal

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #114 on: April 13, 2006, 09:02:28 PM »
Quote from: "aleron"
well that certainly was long ^^;


Thank you! I try. :P

Seriously, though, it seems that in debates wherein the primary debaters use quote-and-answer techniques for posting, posts can only get longer.

Quote from: "aleron"
as a note ends of the earth could be referring to the known world at the time. for there really was an "end" to the earth back then as much was left undiscovered and assumed to be nothingness beyond.


Well, that depends on the context in which you view the Bible. It's writers claim to have been blessed by the Holy Spirit, and it's followers claim it to be written by God through the people to whom he'd given the Spirit. Therefore, if you believe the premise, it cannot be wrong and these people did, indeed, see the edge of the Earth.

That said, Erasmus' points about the Bible did serve to change my position on that passage, so I must agree with you, adding that they were wrong about where the edge of the Earth was. Or assume that it was indeed the entire Earth and that purple dragons created the Americas later...

...

...

I think I'll stick with "I agree." :wink:


--Chal

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #115 on: April 13, 2006, 09:18:28 PM »
Quote
as a note ends of the earth could be referring to the known world at the time. for there really was an "end" to the earth back then as much was left undiscovered and assumed to be nothingness beyond.


That's a good idea and all but I don't think it's right.  For one, I do agree that people living thousands of years ago viewed their local world as "the world."  However, if they were to go to the edge of the known world they obviously couldn't claim it to be the "end of the earth" because they could look farther and see that there was more beyond that point.  Considering the idea that God wrote the Bible, though, it would be ridiculous to think that he was referring to a human boundary to say "end of the earth."  Anyway, I'll shut up.
ooyakasha!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #116 on: April 13, 2006, 11:26:26 PM »
Chal: in light of your point about the box-quote-reply format of forum discussion leading to intractably long posts, I've decided to try and essayify some ideas from scratch.

The one specific comment of yours that I'd like to address directly is, to paraphrase, "All the tests that disprove a FE only work if you assume the Earth to be round."  I assure you that this is not the case.  The most basic test is to measure distances and angles on the surface of the Earth, and determine from that data alone what the shape of the Earth is.  A particular aspect of the theory that can be easily and directly attacked is the FE model of gravity as acceleration: the torsion balance experiment makes no assumptions about the shape of the Earth, yet it proves that the things that the Earth is made of create a gravitational field; also, the FE-gravity prediction about the precise way in which gravitational acceleration varies with altitude does not hold up to simple measurements.  I'd be happy to discuss these and other tests with you in another thread.

The main point I want to make in this post is twofold:
1)  How do you decide which portions of the Bible are to be taken as historical accounts, and which are to be taken as parable (if any fall in to the latter category)?
2)  Do you also consider other mythical (as described by mainstream science) accounts of cosmology, creation, or prehistory to be equally valid?

To me the second part is particularly poignant.  I think these questions are especially interesting in light of your declaration of yourself as Roman pagan (by which I assume you mean that you revere some subset or aspect of the Roman pantheon).

Given our irreconcilable disagreements on epistemology, I suggest we temporarily postpone the flat-vs-round debate.  Instead, I would like to persue this metadisagreement --which is of great interest to me -- itself;  I suggest it be moved to a new thread, which I will take the liberty tonight of beginning.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

Chaltier

  • The Elder Ones
  • 173
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #117 on: April 14, 2006, 01:27:03 AM »
Well, on the issue of gravity, recall that I reject the FE Rapid Upward Motion theory in favour of one stating that gravity exists, but is caused by external sources. This is, of course, not to say that said sources cannot exist within objects, simply that it's not the objects themselves creating it, and thus it won't necessarily be found in all objects (for those who don't know, as I've seen this idea contested in previous threads, mainstream RE belief does indeed assert that all objects have gravity).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
1) How do you decide which portions of the Bible are to be taken as historical accounts, and which are to be taken as parable (if any fall in to the latter category)?
2) Do you also consider other mythical (as described by mainstream science) accounts of cosmology, creation, or prehistory to be equally valid?


I. It's hard to tell, really. I certainly don't take it entirely literally as an historical text, and it has little value to me as a religious one. However, it can be very difficult at times to determine what is and is not real from it's passages. I'm not one to discount an idea simply because no one else has ever seen the phenomenon described or anything close to it, though at the same time I won't automatically belief in said passages either. Either way, I don't take it all as having come from the god they say it did.

II. I consider all pagan traditional accounts of the gods to be indeed valid, as well as the Sybilline Books. (Unfortunately the latter are no longer available to us in their original form due to Christian persecution; they were burned. Another set of documents was written many years later, which the author named the "Sybilline Books," but these are obvious forgeries and not to be taken seriously. They "predict" events that had happened centuries before, and contain obviously Christian-influenced content. It likely contains some original text, but it's impossible to tell what's genuine and what isn't. The only true knowledge we have of the actual Books today is contained in historical documents describing events predicted (beforehand) and influenced by them.)

Might I return those questions to you? I don't know what your faith is, if you have one, or what your view thereof is prescisely.

Thinking about some comments on faiths I've made thus far that some people with traditional Christian views on religion (non-Christians included) may think hypocritical, perhaps I should begin a topic refuting some mainstream ideas about paganism. Most people think of all religions as they view Christianity, and for classical paganism, they really couldn't be farther from the truth. Would such a thing be appropriate for this forum?

As for the new topic, I'm in the process of posting there now, though it may not be done until tomorrow afternoon due to time constraint and the amount I need to write (I'm arguing for three of four ideas presented, when properly combined.)


--Chal

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #118 on: April 14, 2006, 09:10:50 AM »
Quote from: "Chaltier"
Well, on the issue of gravity, recall that I reject the FE Rapid Upward Motion theory in favour of one stating that gravity exists, but is caused by external sources. This is, of course, not to say that said sources cannot exist within objects, simply that it's not the objects themselves creating it, and thus it won't necessarily be found in all objects


Could you expand on this idea?  For instance 6strings has proposed an alternate gravity model involving placing the FE on top of a much larger disc that have a gravitational field, but the theory had problems; I proposed making the Earth a deep cylinder with its own gravitational field, so that field lines would be near-parallel at the surface.

Quote
Might I return those questions to you? I don't know what your faith is, if you have one, or what your view thereof is prescisely.


1)  While by no means am I an historian, I realize that a good portion of the Bible has historical value.  My understanding is that some of the more "mystical" books -- such as Revelations -- were written as allegorical political commentary.  Furthermore, many books contain primarily the stuff of human history -- who ruled whom, who conquered whom, who married whom, who cheated on whom with whom, etc -- and eschew the supernatural.  I see no particular reason to discount these as sources of history, with the caveat that they be carefully analyzed and their information combined with and compared to / verified by other sources.  Mainly I am sceptical about passages describing events that are blatantly supernatural, as well as those about events which should leave lasting evidence (Noah's flood) but do not.  I admit that this is because I suppose that it is not merely coincidental that reports such supernatural events are restricted to times and places where rigorous methods of observation and recording are not used and where it is equally likely (for example, the authors make no claim to the contrary) that the accounts are simply parable.

2)  I consider all mythical accounts of historical events (that come to mind at the moment, at least) equally valid: not much at all.  That said, I believe we can glean enormous anthropological knowledge from them, and that to me is far more valuable.  As for religion, I have none, but I have something better-to-me -- a rationalist conjecture (my own) about why other people do have religion.

Quote
I should begin a topic refuting some mainstream ideas about paganism. ... Would such a thing be appropriate for this forum?


Sure it would.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?
« Reply #119 on: April 19, 2006, 04:07:35 AM »
Chaltier, i agree with most of your statements, yet the excessive nature of your replies must be downtrodden. Despite the mystery of your gender, which Erasmus believes to be male, you really should be more open minded to others in order to ensure that your opinions are no less than resolved and certain, not just a one-sided dogmatic collection. At present Erasmus and you have been holding this argument solely between yourselves while everyone else acts as mere bystanders throwing comments at you that bounce right off you. You could achieve a much more fulfilled perspective of the world, flat or round or cube, if you invite opinions as well as state what you believe to be truths.