Round Earth and Thetons

The great emporer Xenu shuttled aliens to Earth in DC-10s millions of years ago, killed them, and forced their souls to remain on Earth. The lost souls (Thetons) went into the bodies of humans, and are the reason for all our pain and suffering. Scientologists know this... the evidence being... that L. Ron Hubbard said so...
Flat-Earthers know the Earth is flat... the evidence being... erm... well, about as credible as the Scientology theory of Thetons.

...ahem...

Did you just attempt to make a connection between Scientology and ANYTHING? If so, your logic is flawed.

Even the FE'ers think Scientology is stupid, they at least have dignity.

I wasn't attempting to be logical, I was taking the piss.
Although I was relating another illogical theory to that of the Flat-Earthers.

Q. Why is there a government conspiracy to tell everyone the world is flat?
A. We dunno. There just is.
 :?

Actually, both are equally absurd. Neither has any proof, both make completely asinine claims, and neither can stand up to any serious debate.

Sorry, and your evidence that the Earth is round is.... that your teacher said so?  That some book said so?  The beliefs of scientologists are written down in books too.

Sorry, and your evidence that the Earth is round is.... that your teacher said so?  That some book said so?  The beliefs of scientologists are written down in books too.

That the FE model is impossible. In fact, any model other than a sphere is impossible because of sunset.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Sorry, and your evidence that the Earth is round is.... that your teacher said so?  That some book said so?  The beliefs of scientologists are written down in books too.

That the FE model is impossible. In fact, any model other than a sphere is impossible because of sunset.

You remind me of all the great scientists who said that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.... except that you're not a great scientist.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "You undeducated morons"

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Sorry, and your evidence that the Earth is round is.... that your teacher said so?  That some book said so?  The beliefs of scientologists are written down in books too.

That the FE model is impossible. In fact, any model other than a sphere is impossible because of sunset.

You remind me of all the great scientists who said that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.... except that you're not a great scientist.

-Erasmus

That is fantastic. You still cannot explain how sunset happens in the flat earth model. The sun cannot dissapear below the horizon at one point on earth, and still be directly overhead at another.

Sure it can; the refraction of light as it enters the denser mediums of air closer to the ground causes the illusion.

There are pictures of the round Earth.

Earth is round, deal with it.

The Flat-Earth argument to almost any piece of Round-Earth evidence is that it is "fake". Although they do not have any logical reasons WHY it should have been faked.
That can be said about anything, ANYTHING at all.
For example, removing your brain and mincing it does not kill you. I have never done it myself, and I have never directly seen it been done to someone, so all evidence and claims suggesting that this would happen are fake. I don't know why anyone should fake it, but I just think they did. In fact, this is a more reasonably claim than that of a flat earth, because there is no direct visible evidence to the contrary (where as Round-Earthers have the sunset, to name but one of many examples).
Also, jumping off a 30-story high building and landing on your head will not harm you in any way. Any videos, photos, or word-of-mouth stating otherwise is faked. Why? I don't know. It just is.
That is very frequently the argument of Flat-Earthers, and this is UNDENIABLE, as it is written on several posts, and is even in the forum's FAQ for everything to see.
Shafted  

Hello Erasmus...

Someone reminds you of people who said heavier-than-air flight was impossible...

That's pretty rich bud, given that the superstitious and utterly baseless "christian" church tortured people to death for stating that the earth was round (which obviously it was, and is).

You remind me of them... and you remind me of the christians who come up to me in the street and tell me things that bring disrepute to the many statements in this world which fall into the "clearly not true" category.

We don't believe it because people tell it to us we believe it because its the most likely explanation for the phenomena we witness. People have know the shape o the earth for many thousands of years its just that some weird people a few hundred years ago wouldn't let people say anything about it.

Another thing, Erasmus. One of your counter-arguments to Round Earth evidence is that none of us have performed experiments ourselves, and we only believe it because it is written in text books. Well of course that's the way it happens, because that is the way science works. People build on the work of others. If every individual were left to make scientific discoveries of their own from SCRATCH, without any background science, on the basis that it may be fake, no-one would make any new discoveries, EVER.
If any of you FE's could come up with a plausible reason why all these DIFFERENT SOURCES should have made up evidences about gravity, round earth, etc, or how and why the governments should keep it hidden knowledge, then your "the text books lie" argument may hold some ground. As it stands, it does not. By your reasoning, we have to argue against every single piece of science ever written, because it COULD be fake. Most scientific theories have more than one possible answer, but you work out which is the best by putting the facts together and looking at the most plausible explanation. The reason all the text books say "the world is round" is because that is BY FAR the most plausible explanation. The photos back up this evidence, seeing as there is no realistic reason as to why anyone should have faked these, and not been uncovered (bearing in mind all the people that have been in and left world governments since the first of these photos was taken).

Another thing, Erasmus. One of your counter-arguments to Round Earth evidence is that none of us have performed experiments ourselves, and we only believe it because it is written in text books. Well of course that's the way it happens, because that is the way science works.

You're way off.  If we all believed what we read in books, then we'd still be stumbling around on Einstein's blunder.  I mean, he was Einstein, right?  Nothing he wrote could have been wrong.  Hey, forget Einstein.... after Aristotle, what was the point of doing any experiments, ever?  He had pretty much explained, well, just about everything!

Science works by one person sticking their neck out with a new hypothesis, and then everybody else goes about trying to support or refute the claim.  The point of writing books is not so that people will believe what you have to say -- it's to give people an opportunity to prove you wrong.

This misconception you have about the scientific method is exactly what's at the heart of all science-vs-religion debates.  Science is not just some stuff written in a book -- it's a harsh and rigorous gauntlet that any hypothesis must run before being taken seriously.  And even then, "taken seriously" doesn't mean "exempt from criticism or doubt" -- it just means, "not scorned out of hand for being totally untested."

People build on the work of others. If every individual were left to make scientific discoveries of their own from SCRATCH, without any background science, on the basis that it may be fake, no-one would make any new discoveries, EVER.

Yep, that's pretty much not true at all.  Making all the old discoveries from scratch is essentially the process of becoming a scientist.  What do you think students in universities are doing?  They're reproducing all the results relevant to their field of interest.  Again, the notion that a university science education involves nothing more than memorizing the contents of textbooks and lectures is a dangerous misconception about how science works, and is at the heart of science-vs-religion and science-vs-people-like-bullhorn "debates".

-Erasmus

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. I happen to be a biology student, and if I was required, for example, to try and make a discovery of why *something* causes cancer at a genetic level, I am going to need background knowledge on DNA, sequencing methods, molecular kinetics, etc. What your arguments are suggesting is that I need to dispute all of that science because I have not formed any of the conclusions myself. So basically, I need to re-discover the cell, re-discover DNA, re-invent a sequencing method, etc, etc... which means I will never come to any new conclusions. Science works by building on the work of others, that is a fact. IF you have a good reason to dispute a previous scientific claim, then that's fine. As of yet, I see no collection of evidence that supports flat earth theory over round earth theory, which is why I (and most intelligent people) choose to believe what has been written in text books regarding round earth, because there is CLEARLY much more numerous and logical pieces of evidence supporting Round Earth.

Yeah sorry Erasmus, there's a real difference between learning how other people discovered something, and then choosing to believe it or not based on your own thoughts, and being somehow left or led to discovering it yourself...

If anything I would have expected a more sophisticated argument... I mean... as I sit here laughing at you, I realise that frankly MY version of what a uni education is probably supports your argument more than your own version does...

At least you might be able to CLAIM that the universities "lead us on" somehow... but instead you have chosen to believe that people all independently discover the same facts (which you dispute)...

How does that even help your argument?

What's more, it's not exactly logical for me to believe a bunch of long gone american hillbillies who are chained in their minds to some ridiculous biblical literalism, over the word of some people many of whom risked life and limb with the medieval equivalent of Bush and his looney christian-right trying to explain to people how physics works.

Incidentally there's a university in Rotterdam called Erasmus, this is where he came from. Don't know much more about the dude though.

If anyone cares, I study aerospace engineering... we're supposedly the people who CAN'T really build planes and DIDN'T really send men to the moon.

Nice one.

american hillbillies who are chained in their minds to some ridiculous biblical literalism

I don't think any of the true FE'ers on this board believe the earth is flat for religious reasons.

If anyone cares, I study aerospace engineering... we're supposedly the people who CAN'T really build planes and DIDN'T really send men to the moon.

What in FE theory led you to believe you couldn't build a plane?

All the knowledge required to build planes is fake...

Its the same knowledge we use to work out basic stuff like the shape of the Earth's surface... geometry and all that...

All fake... had you forgotten?

And don't just say "no it's not"

I'm the Aerospace Engineer... I'll tell YOU what science does what if you please, from where I'm standing it seems to work alright.

Looneys are very often so-called Christians, having misinterpreted some nice fairy-tales. I couldn't imagine where on God's (oblate spheroid) earth such ideas could have come from.

Frankly I don't believe you... I only ever hear this sort of talk in one place.

So sorry if you're offended but no more offended than I am about you claiming that my whole life is a lie and a conspiracy... I mean I would tend to comment that governments don't govern for "conspiratorial" reasons... the implication is no less outrageous...

Is it?

I'm the Aerospace Engineer... I'll tell YOU what science does what if you please, from where I'm standing it seems to work alright.

You are apparently, also, an ass. I'm "the" Computer Engineer. And "the" Electrical Engineer. Does that mean my word is gospel when it comes to how those little electron things fly all over the place?
No.
No.
A million times, no.

The fact that you are studying something does not make your opinons more significant, nor your views less fallable.

If you have practical, specific information from your studies that you can apply to the discussion, then by all means. Until then, don't mistake being academic for being right.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. I happen to be a biology student

Well then I guess Sas and azz are missing out on what I always thought was one of the most rewarding features of a university education -- the opportunity not only to acquire knowledge, but also to verify or refute that knowledge for yourself.

I've known physics students who've verified by experiment a variety of predictions of both the modern theories of physics and the ancient ones.  And while I don't have any experience in chemistry or biology, it would shock me to learn that the curriculum involves no repetition of the classical experiments or studies that showed, for example, what's inside a cell, or how such-and-such a reaction goes.  What are undergrads doing in all those hours of laboratory?

So basically, I need to re-discover the cell, re-discover DNA, re-invent a sequencing method, etc, etc... which means I will never come to any new conclusions.

I didn't suggest you had to invent the entire scientific theory on your own; I just said that it behooves you -- and my impression of a university science education was that it is mantatory -- to verify at least some of the major findings in the history of your field.

I.e. I'm not saying you have to design your own telescope and grind the lenses in order to observe the Galilean moons.  However, you ought to observe them.

-Erasmus

MY version of what a uni education is probably supports your argument more than your own version does...

Maybe you could stem the tide of laughter long enough to tell me what exactly it is you think I'm arguing for?

If anyone cares, I study aerospace engineering...

I don't particularly care, but I would point out that I wouldn't expect an aerospace engineering program to feature the same sorts of epistemological rigour as a science program.

-Erasmus

Well then I guess Sas and azz are missing out on what I always thought was one of the most rewarding features of a university education -- the opportunity not only to acquire knowledge, but also to verify or refute that knowledge for yourself.

I've known physics students who've verified by experiment a variety of predictions of both the modern theories of physics and the ancient ones.  And while I don't have any experience in chemistry or biology, it would shock me to learn that the curriculum involves no repetition of the classical experiments or studies that showed, for example, what's inside a cell, or how such-and-such a reaction goes.  What are undergrads doing in all those hours of laboratory?

Verifying and refuting knowledge is all well and good, and we have verified some simple experiments at university, yes. What i'm saying is, there is not enough time in the world to refute EVERY scientific experiment and theory, or even all those that relate to your own field. If I was to conduct a new experiment based on past science, and then found out the results were not consistent with past science, or for some reason the past science does not explain my new result, THEN I have a reason to refute past science. I need to have a damn good reason to refute past knowledge, otherwise you will be stuck in a never-ending paranoid state of not accepting anything that has been theorised or deduced in the past.

Erm... Mr. Unimportant

Saying I was an aerospace engineer was there to lend credibility to the claim that I know which sciences and information one needs to develop and build aerospace systems... not to suggest that my opinion is more "valid".

Of course you misunderstood that on purpose and really you know exactly what I mean, you're just obfuscating like an "ass".

Oh an you, Erasmus,

Why don't you stop laughing and fill me in? If it's so funny.

And another thing, Engineering is science, don't patronise us, we're the ones who put things in Orbit. We don't need "epistemological" rigour to know that the veracity of the theories of things like gravity and electromagnetic fields, the nature and effects of the atmosphere on light, etc etc, are borne out by what is now everyday practice...

But there's no argument against the statement that anyone who claims to have evidence against this FE thing is a liar... It's just like the schrodinger's cat idea... you can't PROVE it wrong because you HAVE to look to check... so once one starts about illusions and stuff one can always think of some excuse to stick one's head in the sand.

I'm colourblind... at some point I have to simply believe the evidence presented to me that the grass is green and not orange... I COULD always try and devise a conspiracy theory which hides unknowns in the bushes or plays them down, and/or hides them under heaps of bumph...

Eventually though that becomes silly (or "likely not to achieve anything)... we all know that every "fact" is really in dispute... as you have demonstrated, that's the nature of science... we all know that...

One has to progress forward, but not forget that what one is building on my be flawed... subtly or fundamentally. Just because people aren't convinced by rather contrived turtle-tales, it doesn't mean they don't understand or realise that.

ARE you all americans?

Why don't you stop laughing and fill me in? If it's so funny.

What?

And another thing, Engineering is science,

This comment is out of line; no educated person ought to make this claim.  The methods and the goals of science and engineering are quite distinct.

It's just like the schrodinger's cat idea...

Are you saying the Earth is in a superposition of "is flat" and "is round" states?

I'm colourblind ...  I COULD always try and devise a conspiracy theory which hides unknowns in the bushes or plays them down, and/or hides them under heaps of bumph ... Eventually though that becomes silly ... One has to progress forward, ... turtle-tales,

So what you're saying is, accepted ideas should not be questioned?

ARE you all americans?

Relevance?

You talked about a tide of laughter, I am inviting you to clarify things to this poor subject of the laughter.

Can you explain the differences between the goals and methods that you think science and engineering have? What about "applied science", how is that different from engineering in essence?

Also I just LOVE the way you've also monopolised what an educated person should and shouldn't say. I think an educated person shouldn't think the earth is flat... also, doesn't education imply being educated... by something or some source... and hence imply having had to accept some well reasoned statements at some point? Backed up by what one personally sees as reasonable evidence (( which as we know can never fully be conclusive ))

About S cat, I simply mean that it isn't particularly clever to invent a theory that can't be proven wrong, because you make that part of it's definition. It's philosophy rather than science. Not that there's too much inherently wrong with that... but you should call it what it is.

How have you jumped to me saying things shouldn't be questioned? Are you high?

Talking about relevance may be misplaced by either party here because the thread is called "Round Earth and Thetons"

I was just curious to see whether you were all americans, most of the looneys I have met are and I wondered whether this would back up that pattern or contradict it...

Independent investigation of the truth ***applause***

So are you?

You talked about a tide of laughter, I am inviting you to clarify things to this poor subject of the laughter.

You said, "as I (Sas) sit here laughing at you (Erasmus) blah blah blah."

Can you explain the differences between the goals and methods that you think science and engineering have? What about "applied science", how is that different from engineering in essence?

Goals are easy.  The point of science is to figure out how the world works, on a variety of scales.  The point of engineering is to manipulate the world, on a variety of scales.  Obviously they serve each other: it's easier to study particle physics when you have particle accelerators, and it's easier to build bridges when you have a theory of deformable media, for example.  However, that doesn't mean that their goals are the same.

The line separating the methods is a little fuzzier.  One might argue that the qualities that civil engineers have are analogous to those that scientists want theories to have... and it's true to an extent.  However, there's this (to me) fundamental difference in that engineering needs methods that produce effectively, whereas science needs methods that discriminate effectively.

Sorry if that's not clear; it's not clear in my head either.

Also I just LOVE the way you've also monopolised what an educated person should and shouldn't say.

Thanks, it took lots of practice.

How have you jumped to me saying things shouldn't be questioned?

Something you said about "gotta always progress forward" made me think that that's what you meant.  To me "gotta always progress forward" is very much an "engineering method" whereas "gotta check those old results again" is a "science method".

Are you high?

No, but on that note, but what was up with the "bumph" and "turtle-tales"?  Maybe it's an <insert wherever you're from here> thing; if so, my apologies.

1.) Ah, that laughter.

2.) Well... those ideas are very clever, instinctively I think engineering fits kind of "within" science... I think all science has SOME wing devoted to achieving things, even if its only devising experiments, which falls under engineering in the sense that one needs tools for all but the simplest experiments and creating them is engineering, inextricably linked to experiment and thus to science...

Don't get me wrong I take your point, and it is nicely put too. As engineers though we are taught "science" courses, even up to things like experimental methods... albeit highly specialised and not so much in the general sense which I guess was what you meant.

3.) Goddammit. You may not go on about common sense being non-sensical and talk about what educated people can't say.

4.) I have said on occasion that all serious scientists in my opinion should, but usually also DO take into account that every single thing has SOME doubt intrinsic to it.

Scientific dogma though has always sucked and gotten seriously in the way and got people unjustly in trouble, engineering dogma fucking pisses me off and people who practice it need to be beaten with iron bars.

Checking old results again is blatantly taught all over engineering, at least here in Delft, doubt is inherent in risk assessment and stuff and if you're clever you take into account faulty data. However, usually the chance that the fundamentals of physics turn out to be wrong is neglected compared to more immediate dangers.

Rememberring there is a CHANCE is still important though, I don't dispute that. I do think that in order to credibly do it though, one needs to be aware of the many more likely problems in science, like those associated with instrumentation and stuff.