New User with a New Question... Maybe?

Let me preface by saying I am not a crazy, flaming troll.  I stumbled upon this site (which was by pure randomness; another topic for another time) several weeks ago.  Since then, I have read countless threads and read the FAQ multiple times; so I do understand what is going on.  I have also gotten a pretty good sense of the regular posters' personalities from reading so many posts.  I have also been over to the .net site and lurked over there.  I read Tom Bishops' references of the 100 proofs (all of them)  and have finished about half of Earth Not a Globe.  I try to be as informed as possible before making a conclusion.


I believe in a round Earth (not the topic for debate but I wanted to clarify), however I do respect what I believe to be the premise of this place for most users which is to question what is presented to you instead of blindly accepting it as fact.

Anyway, on to my topic which I think is just a different form of "'why is the Earth flat?"  It relates more to a philosophical viewpoint than a scientific one.  I didn't want to put it in the Religion and Philosophy section since I think it pertains more to debate (also the same reason I didn't introduce myself in the General Discussion section).


My opinion (which may be completely wrong) is that the Earth is not special in any way.  My beliefs follow along an existentialist, slightly nihilist point of view.  Everything I have read and studied seems to indicate that we are just the product of probability of an expanding universe filled with trillions of objects (meaning that life was bound to happen somewhere, we just happen to be it so far).  I believe that there is no ultimate consequence, but that the only thing that matters is what we do here on Earth.  "Existence before essence" is how Existentialists like Sartre put it.  To me, it seems the only reason to truly believe the Earth is flat is to believe that it is "special" and part of some bigger picture.  Now, I realize that most people on here aren't particularly religious, which is why I am putting this question forward.  I am having a hard time rationalizing the Earth being different from every other celestial body unless there are metaphysical attributes to it.

Anyway,  I would enjoy any insight to the topic.

First I'd like to congratulate you on a well written, intelligent, and logical first post. Something I've only seen a handful of times on this forum.

As for your thoughts on us not being special. Most FE'ers do not believe that the earth is special, or that it was created just for us. We believe the Universe's layout is due to certain rules and laws, and the flatness of the Earth is a result of these laws. If you stay a while you may even find that the FE hypothesis has less mysteries to it than the RE one. I hope that you stay and debate and maybe even learn some things about most models that you never knew.

Have fun, be civil, and don't take crap from the trolls.

I believe in a round Earth (not the topic for debate but I wanted to clarify), however I do respect what I believe to be the premise of this place for most users which is to question what is presented to you instead of blindly accepting it as fact.

 You know, bored people nothing to do. They were presented one thing in childhood and they did have no way doubting it. It was not blindly accepting but they were taught that way and it seemed reasonable. Now, they grew up and were presented other view and because of their ignorance about physics and other things they cried - hey, it seems plausible. There is even nice pictures and "experiments" in book. And so they blindly accepted other view and now are searching reasons for justifying it. In short, I don't see these true flat earth believers nothing more than people who blindly accepted other view. Not as people who question what was presented for them. They don't question round earth, they just search desperately for some evidence to support their view.

Quote from: jmguy on March 13, 2009, 12:29:38 PM

I believe in a round Earth (not the topic for debate but I wanted to clarify), however I do respect what I believe to be the premise of this place for most users which is to question what is presented to you instead of blindly accepting it as fact.

 You know, bored people nothing to do. They were presented one thing in childhood and they did have no way doubting it. It was not blindly accepting but they were taught that way and it seemed reasonable. Now, they grew up and were presented other view and because of their ignorance about physics and other things they cried - hey, it seems plausible. There is even nice pictures and "experiments" in book. And so they blindly accepted other view and now are searching reasons for justifying it. In short, I don't see these true flat earth believers nothing more than people who blindly accepted other view. Not as people who question what was presented for them. They don't question round earth, they just search desperately for some evidence to support their view.

What?

 What what? Seriously, all I see here is desperate search for something that would show that the earth may be flat.

What what? Seriously, all I see here is desperate search for something that would show that the earth may be flat.

My what was at that paragraph that was possibly in an english dialect.

This thread should have been a pimp slap to the face of any FET and yet it is only one page. I approve of this post.

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on March 14, 2009, 02:32:02 AM

This thread should have been a pimp slap to the face of any FET and yet it is only one page. I approve of this post.

I agree (not with the pimp slap part).  I don't want to seem like an attention whore, but I thought more people would talk about this.  It has a lot of views, but few posts.  I am jealous of your ability to start a 6.023x10^23 page long thread with a closed, one-sided, one sentence statement...

You have to be meaner.

Most FE'ers do not believe that the earth is special

Have you read the FAQ?

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:53:14 PM

Most FE'ers do not believe that the earth is special

Have you read the FAQ?

Quote

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

I read the faq long long ago. The faq is not a complete guide of FE theory and does not represent the views of the majority of its members. Check the edits, I've never changed/written in the faq.

The reason they say it is "special" is simply because it is different. The big bang relied on a giant mass of matter that started the universe, doesn't that make that mass of matter special?

Quote from: Obamabam on March 14, 2009, 05:59:41 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:53:14 PM

Most FE'ers do not believe that the earth is special

Have you read the FAQ?

Quote

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

I read the faq long long ago. The faq is not a complete guide of FE theory and does not represent the views of the majority of its members. Check the edits, I've never changed/written in the faq.

The reason they say it is "special" is simply because it is different. The big bang relied on a giant mass of matter that started the universe, doesn't that make that mass of matter special?

Of course, the FAQ isn't correct. It is incomplete, inconsistent and not representative of the current FET. Let's all agree that it's worthless and stop referring people to it.

Of course, I might be wrong now. I can never tell what FEers want: Debate the FET as outlined in the FAQ (Why else insist that everyone read it before posting?) or the FET of the mainstream (Why would we debate anything else?)

Quote from: jmguy on March 14, 2009, 02:34:39 AM

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on March 14, 2009, 02:32:02 AM

This thread should have been a pimp slap to the face of any FET and yet it is only one page. I approve of this post.

I agree (not with the pimp slap part).  I don't want to seem like an attention whore, but I thought more people would talk about this.  It has a lot of views, but few posts.  I am jealous of your ability to start a 6.023x10^23 page long thread with a closed, one-sided, one sentence statement...

You have to be meaner.

Or in your case, stupider.

Nice post jmguy

I read the faq long long ago. The faq is not a complete guide of FE theory and does not represent the views of the majority of its members.

Not only is it "not complete". It directly contradicts the claims of the highest members in this site. *sigh*

Check the edits, I've never changed/written in the faq.

If you feel that strongly about it why not start your own Flat Earth Society with your own FAQ? If you don't want to, feel free to step down. You clearly have no faith in the FES here.

My opinion (which may be completely wrong) is that the Earth is not special in any way.  My beliefs follow along an existentialist, slightly nihilist point of view.  Everything I have read and studied seems to indicate that we are just the product of probability of an expanding universe filled with trillions of objects (meaning that life was bound to happen somewhere, we just happen to be it so far).  I believe that there is no ultimate consequence, but that the only thing that matters is what we do here on Earth.  "Existence before essence" is how Existentialists like Sartre put it.  To me, it seems the only reason to truly believe the Earth is flat is to believe that it is "special" and part of some bigger picture.  Now, I realize that most people on here aren't particularly religious, which is why I am putting this question forward.  I am having a hard time rationalizing the Earth being different from every other celestial body unless there are metaphysical attributes to it.

Simple truth is, the "theories" of Flat Earthers absolutely require us to be special.

There could be other patches of inhabited Flat Earth beyond the "Ice Wall", complete with their own Sun and stars, but this would destroy the already incredible explanations on how we cannot travel past the "Ice Wall".

In both Science and Philosophy the idea that we are not special is very important, even though it has not been demonstrated yet. It puts us in the right perspective. If we see a super-nova, chances are it was not the only one in the universe. If we have water and DNA, chances are many in every galaxy have them also.

But in a flat Earth there is no space for "intelligent beings" anywhere in the known universe (patches mentioned earlier would not be in the "known" universe). Gravitational pull has to be "special" on Earth and "unspecial" over us. Whatever accelerates us upwards has to affect a special barrier under us, but not us. The "spotlight Sun" has to be meticulously designed to fool us into believing it is a sphere at about the same distance from every human observer, and so is the Moon. Every single piece of the FE theories screams "designed to fool you idiot earthings".

I like this post, it highlights my biggest problem with this whole FE thing, can't quite bring myself to say theory, I might generously go for postulate. There is something very anthropic about the FE postulate. It requires the Earth to special to a degree not even considered by Catholics in the 11th century. More disconcertingly it is not only highly anthropic but also suggests a misleading deity. Looking at data at face value one would expect the world to be round. A massive conspiracy combined with utterly bizarre physics needs to be called upon. World leaders deceiving the general public would not surprise me thought I still can't think what they have to gain from this. What really bothers me is the conspiracy that is being carried out by a deity responsible for making a universe with a flat Earth but has strange physical anomalies that make it appear spherical.

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:18:36 AM

I read the faq long long ago. The faq is not a complete guide of FE theory and does not represent the views of the majority of its members.

Not only is it "not complete". It directly contradicts the claims of the highest members in this site. *sigh*

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:18:36 AM

Check the edits, I've never changed/written in the faq.

If you feel that strongly about it why not start your own Flat Earth Society with your own FAQ? If you don't want to, feel free to step down. You clearly have no faith in the FES here.

I don't mind the faq, it is a useful reference material for new people that want to ask questions such as "if the earth is flat how did columbus circumnavigate the Earth?" Though the faq should also include such little details as "columbus did not circumnavigate the Earth" and which year he did so.

Anyway,  I would enjoy any insight to the topic.

Welcome to FES! An excellent opening post, if I may say so - I hope you have many interesting and entertaining debates here.

In response to your post, it is a very seductive position of modern science (and, indeed, prior science and philosophy) to say that the Earth is 'nothing special' when the most obvious piece of evidence - ourselves - implies otherwise.  The easy answers come from the anthropic principle, which you are clearly familiar with, but which leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth of any rigorous inquiring mind.  FET gets around this, of course, by saying that the Earth is special in that it seems to behave differently to other celestial bodies.

This causes problems with mainstream science, but is it not possible that the flat Earth is not, in fact, special, but is only one of many similarly accelerated bodies in the Universe?  We haven't been looking for them and have not seen any direct evidence to support this, but there are unexplained phenomena in the Universe which could all be symptoms of the same cause.  Could it be that bodies accelerated by the UA/DE are unable to directly observe each other?  Could these bodies be responsible for the 'dark matter' in the Universe?  These are interesting possibilities worthy of debate, but often get lost in a sea of trolling and incoherent attempts at derailment.

You seem to be the type to enjoy a rational, reasoned discussion, so I hope you may help us to get to the bottom of the mysteries still present in FET (and RET) without getting trolled too much

Quote from: jmguy on March 13, 2009, 12:29:38 PM

Anyway,  I would enjoy any insight to the topic.

Welcome to FES! An excellent opening post, if I may say so - I hope you have many interesting and entertaining debates here.

In response to your post, it is a very seductive position of modern science (and, indeed, prior science and philosophy) to say that the Earth is 'nothing special' when the most obvious piece of evidence - ourselves - implies otherwise.  The easy answers come from the anthropic principle, which you are clearly familiar with, but which leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth of any rigorous inquiring mind.  FET gets around this, of course, by saying that the Earth is special in that it seems to behave differently to other celestial bodies.

This causes problems with mainstream science, but is it not possible that the flat Earth is not, in fact, special, but is only one of many similarly accelerated bodies in the Universe?  We haven't been looking for them and have not seen any direct evidence to support this, but there are unexplained phenomena in the Universe which could all be symptoms of the same cause.  Could it be that bodies accelerated by the UA/DE are unable to directly observe each other?  Could these bodies be responsible for the 'dark matter' in the Universe?  These are interesting possibilities worthy of debate, but often get lost in a sea of trolling and incoherent attempts at derailment.

You seem to be the type to enjoy a rational, reasoned discussion, so I hope you may help us to get to the bottom of the mysteries still present in FET (and RET) without getting trolled too much

Tip of the hats... Great response.

The easy answers come from the anthropic principle, which you are clearly familiar with, but which leaves a somewhat unpleasant taste in the mouth of any rigorous inquiring mind.

THe anthropic principle is used to state that the (our) universe is special. Not the (our) earth.

This causes problems with mainstream science, but is it not possible that the flat Earth is not, in fact, special, but is only one of many similarly accelerated bodies in the Universe?

How would we see them? We're accelerating at 99.9999999% the speed of light remember.

We haven't been looking for them

Given that FE'ers have difficulty drawing basic world maps, and has great difficulty in establishing any kind of scientific rational, I really think you're trying to run before you can walk here.

THe anthropic principle is used to state that the (our) universe is special. Not the (our) earth.

It can be applied to both.

How would we see them? We're accelerating at 99.9999999% the speed of light remember.

Relative velocities only change apparent positions (by relativistic aberration), not whether something is visible or not. The explanation I am working on is that each of these bodies may be trapped within its own event horizon of sorts, although as with other details I am still working on tying them together.

Quote from: Matrix on March 15, 2009, 03:41:21 PM

We haven't been looking for them

Given that FE'ers have difficulty drawing basic world maps, and has great difficulty in establishing any kind of scientific rational, I really think you're trying to run before you can walk here.

[/quote]

I was using "we" to mean "humanity", rather than "FE'ers", but it's a fair point that this would be a task beyond the resources available to a small community such as ours.

Quote

How would we see them? We're accelerating at 99.9999999% the speed of light remember.

Relative velocities only change apparent positions (by relativistic aberration), not whether something is visible or not. The explanation I am working on is that each of these bodies may be trapped within its own event horizon of sorts, although as with other details I am still working on tying them together.

Quote

Quote from: Matrix on March 15, 2009, 03:41:21 PM

We haven't been looking for them

Given that FE'ers have difficulty drawing basic world maps, and has great difficulty in establishing any kind of scientific rational, I really think you're trying to run before you can walk here.

I was using "we" to mean "humanity", rather than "FE'ers", but it's a fair point that this would be a task beyond the resources available to a small community such as ours.

"We" (humanity) have looked for everything we have managed to devise a sensing machine for, including every electromagnetic wave we can sense, every subatomic particle we can trap, gravitational waves, and more. The only things I can think of that we are not sensing from space are sound and smell. The lack of evidence for those other flat Earths is not the result of lack of trying.

It is hard for anyone to take you "FE'rs" seriously when you cry a lot about the size of your community but refuse to do the experiments that are within your capabilities, refuse to "do the maths" for any hypothesis or model of yours, or even accept that overwhelming evidence against your "hypothesis" is an indication of failure.

By the way, wouldn't another "flat Earth", pushed by enough energy to light a star, be easily visible? Otherwise you are getting into the same argument as before, declaring us special and at the very least the fastest "Earth" in this side of the universe.

There is no escape clause in FE models: if any of them is close to the truth, we are the very special, unique beings that somebody worked feverishly to deceive into believing in a round Earth.

It is hard for anyone to take you "FE'rs" seriously when you cry a lot about the size of your community but refuse to do the experiments that are within your capabilities, refuse to "do the maths" for any hypothesis or model of yours, or even accept that overwhelming evidence against your "hypothesis" is an indication of failure.

They don't "do the maths" itself and when you ask where I can find other people who have done that then answer is - you can't, because they are hidden, buried, killed and their work is burned and erased from everywhere by conspiracy.

By the way, wouldn't another "flat Earth", pushed by enough energy to light a star, be easily visible? Otherwise you are getting into the same argument as before, declaring us special and at the very least the fastest "Earth" in this side of the universe.

Not necessarily.  There might be an infinite number of them, but spaced so far from each other that they are not visible to each other.  Even modern astronomers agree that there's a limit to what we're capable of observing from our point of view in the universe.  I don't think there's anything "special" about the Earth at all.

"We" (humanity) have looked for everything we have managed to devise a sensing machine for, including every electromagnetic wave we can sense, every subatomic particle we can trap, gravitational waves, and more. The only things I can think of that we are not sensing from space are sound and smell. The lack of evidence for those other flat Earths is not the result of lack of trying.

As a point of interest, are you aware that the vast majority of matter in the Universe is unaccounted for?  That then pales in comparison to the total energy, when that not tied up in matter is taken into account. There is evidence aplenty that we don't know what is out there.

Consider then further, that large experimental searches for new physics such as the LHC at CERN generate so much data that they have to discard most of it without ever analysing it - you have to have some idea of where to look in the first place and even then your chances are slim.  There could be clues to the strangest, most fundamental aspects of nature being generated all the time in these experiments and we would throw them out with the statistical noise and cosmic rays, oblivious.

Given all that we know and all that we don't know, I personally believe it is a massive case of self-delusion if anyone even thinks we're close to understanding what makes the Universe tick - don't be so arrogant as to write off seemingly incredible unknowns because you feel like there's nothing left to discover.

It is hard for anyone to take you "FE'rs" seriously when you cry a lot about the size of your community but refuse to do the experiments that are within your capabilities, refuse to "do the maths" for any hypothesis or model of yours, or even accept that overwhelming evidence against your "hypothesis" is an indication of failure.

There is a mass of evidence which supports both models, but FET does so while taking account of the conspiracy while classical RET implicitly relies on falsified data. There are holes in both, but that's why we're here - to fill in the gaps.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 16, 2009, 05:06:08 AM

THe anthropic principle is used to state that the (our) universe is special. Not the (our) earth.

It can be applied to both.

Not really. The conditions which allow life on earth to exist (carbon, water, oxygen, stable orbit, large satellite) are strongly believed to exist elsewhere in the universe. From that respect there is nothing special about the earth.

There is a mass of evidence which supports both models, but FET does so while taking account of the conspiracy while classical RET implicitly relies on falsified data. There are holes in both, but that's why we're here - to fill in the gaps.

There isn't a mass of evidence for FE. And I like it how you turned having a groundless conspiracy into some noble cause.

I guess this means you're a FE'er now huh Matrix? Look, I'm sorry I have to do this.

*Swings double handed axe across Matrix neck. Instant decapitation. Blood up the walls*

Remember: You have to seperate the head from the body. It's the only way.

Not really. The conditions which allow life on earth to exist (carbon, water, oxygen, stable orbit, large satellite) are strongly believed to exist elsewhere in the universe. From that respect there is nothing special about the earth.

And yet the Fermi paradox still has no other resolution: "If they existed, they would be here".

I guess this means you're a FE'er now huh Matrix? Look, I'm sorry I have to do this.

*Swings double handed axe across Matrix neck. Instant decapitation. Blood up the walls*

Remember: You have to seperate the head from the body. It's the only way.

You may take my head, but you'll never take my FREEEEDOOOOOOOMMMM!!!

Also, I thought the only way to be sure was to withdraw and nuke the site from orbit... pity that's impossible under FET

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 04:47:35 AM

Not really. The conditions which allow life on earth to exist (carbon, water, oxygen, stable orbit, large satellite) are strongly believed to exist elsewhere in the universe. From that respect there is nothing special about the earth.

And yet the Fermi paradox still has no other resolution: "If they existed, they would be here".

Of course that assumes that the aliens are smart enough to perfect faster than light travel and that the earth is interesting enough to be worth the bother.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 04:47:35 AM

Not really. The conditions which allow life on earth to exist (carbon, water, oxygen, stable orbit, large satellite) are strongly believed to exist elsewhere in the universe. From that respect there is nothing special about the earth.

And yet the Fermi paradox still has no other resolution: "If they existed, they would be here".

A resolution might be: "If we existed, we would be there." ("There" being a colonised alien world) Clearly untrue.

We are after all, "typical", yet we've not visited every planet, and our radiowaves have barely scratched the galaxy. Isn't it too much to expect aliens to have exceded "typical"?

We are after all, "typical"

I believe you are performing statistics on a sample of one...