In support of the flat earth idea

I'm a skeptic.  I am also an explorer.

I look for evidence before I believe in something.  I have found a lot of evidence that says that the governments of the world are all cooperating.  Their various activities include hiding things from general population.  I don't know what those things are... or how many things they are hiding...

But... anyone who has watched the news, paid attention to politics, and has some sense should realize there is a lot of manipulation of public opinions and thoughts going on.  Not just unintentional media society manipulation... but purposeful manipulation.  Things are too cooperative.  Ideas spread a little too quickly for anyone to believe they are being voluntarily adopted by the public.

Now... as far as the flat earth idea goes... I am a space fan... I am a science fan... I like a lot of the ideas that science claims to have basically proven to be true...

But I am not stuck on them.  I will not defend them until I've tested them myself.  I see all science theory as theory.

I have been reading a lot about the flat earth society.  I have to say, these message boards are filled with empty headed people who are here to A) flagrantly attack anyone touting the flat earth idea and B) people who are here to copy and past news articles in support of the flat earth idea.

This is dumb behavior and further evidence of a manipulation of the minds of the population.  That people can't engage in conversation about the potential realities of a flat earth and the intentional cover up of the idea without resorting to anger that borders on textual violence or mindless quotation is upsetting.

Try to think about this topic.  Do you feel like you have no patience for it?  Why is that?  Are you normally so adamantly infuriated by silly ideas?  Do children make you angry, with their uninformed questions and belief in the fantastic?  Do young adults make you angry when they exhibit the same beliefs?  How about adults?

Instead of assuming everything and everyone's viewpoint on something, try thinking about it and coming to a conclusion as often as possible rather than using the first opinion you think you have.

I am annoyed by people smart enough to use computers that believe things a three year old should be able to see through.

Just because you dont understand a round earth doesnt mean you arent living on one.

I never said I believed the earth was flat.  I said that people don't seem to want to discuss the idea or argue about it.

All the round earth supporters seem to do on this website is yell at the flat earth believers.

Attacking people that believe something that is rather innocuous doesn't seem very rational.

meridia - http://www.bestrxpills.com

Instead of lecturing people about behavior, why don't you explain how the earth has even the slightest chance of being anything but round?  Champion the flat earth's position if you aren't 100% positive and see how far you get.

I see all science theory as theory.

just by the by, when something in science is talked about as a theory it is something that has been tested in the real word by many objective skeptics and has made accurate predictions, once again in the real world. This is in contrast to the pop-culture version of the word which means an idea (hypothesis), while im not saying you should blindly accept everything labeled by science as a theory, the whole idea behind a theory is that it can stand up to criticism (evidence i mean, not opinions or conspiracy theories), it must be realized that any theory (in the scientific term) has stood up to independent tests of everyday people (using undeniable, logically correct methods and standing all by themselves without results from other tests being needed to support them), these people are just like you or me they can be ANYONE who has studied and gone to university, if you or anyone desired they could start becoming one of these people (with a bit of study) at the drop of a hat (and a wad of cash in some countries) and they could see for themselves the evidence presented for every scientific theory and fact currently around. To be a theory the great majority of these people must agree that all the evidence presented strongly suggests it and it can be destroyed by just one piece of evidence (even from a non-scientific source which is then tested by scientists) that shows otherwise.
People (well me at least) get angry because they know this, while this scientific method is the best way of finding something out, many people will much rather ignore the scientific community and listen to journalists or some boffoons on the internet trying to push their unfounded ideas onto others.[/u]

Many things in science start out as unseen. Hendrich Hertz and electromagnetic waves.  Einstein and the prediction that gravity bends light.  The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment attempted see the aether, or evidence thereof.  Yet we now take Hertzs' waves for granted. Einsteins prediction has been proven to be fact recently.  And the experiment to prove or disprove the aether is still not conclusive.

Just think for one minute on the micro scale of light and matter. Visible light bends when passing through a gas, liguid, or solid. Known as refractive index, it is a measurment used everyday in many sciences and industries.    Now think of light and matter on a macro scale, the quantum physics that Einstein has begun to unlock reveals that the earth sits in a gravitational force that BENDS light.

I'd also like to note that until the beginning of the 1900's geologists thought of the earth as a giant onion; layer upon layer of material.
And we just found out in the last few decades that most of the planets have rings.  These are example of how little we know and how things change with more knowledge.

I do not subscribe to one view. I seek the truth as a humble human bean.

First off I want say nice post SciTy.

Quote

I see all science theory as theory.

just by the by, when something in science is talked about as a theory it is something that has been tested in the real word by many objective skeptics and has made accurate predictions, once again in the real world. This is in contrast to the pop-culture version of the word which means an idea (hypothesis), while im not saying you should blindly accept everything labeled by science as a theory, the whole idea behind a theory is that it can stand up to criticism (evidence i mean, not opinions or conspiracy theories), it must be realized that any theory (in the scientific term) has stood up to independent tests of everyday people (using undeniable, logically correct methods and standing all by themselves without results from other tests being needed to support them), these people are just like you or me they can be ANYONE who has studied and gone to university, if you or anyone desired they could start becoming one of these people (with a bit of study) at the drop of a hat (and a wad of cash in some countries) and they could see for themselves the evidence presented for every scientific theory and fact currently around. To be a theory the great majority of these people must agree that all the evidence presented strongly suggests it and it can be destroyed by just one piece of evidence (even from a non-scientific source which is then tested by scientists) that shows otherwise.
People (well me at least) get angry because they know this, while this scientific method is the best way of finding something out, many people will much rather ignore the scientific community and listen to journalists or some boffoons on the internet trying to push their unfounded ideas onto others.[/u]

See here is the problem with theorys. I have just come up with a theory, my theory says that all of you people who post on this board don't exist, you are in fact nothing more than figments of my imagination, and I am actualy just a crazy man tapping on a stump on prehistoric earth.

Now prove me wrong.
You can't can you, because you don't actualy exist.

Now just because my theory can't be proven wrong (to me) does that mean it's true? because that is how science "proves" theorys.

I figured I'd just provide some backing for the people not existing theory.

Going by some scientists beliefs, the universe stretches on infinately. This creates infinate space.

In this space, lets assume there are a finite number of worlds (as no other worlds with life have been discovered, there is nothing to go against this.)

To find the population of the universe, then, we'd do this.

infinite divided by finite.

which leaves us with something any mathematition can point out as 0.

therefor, we can conclude one of the following 3 things.

1-the universe is not infinately large

2-there are infinate worlds supporting life

3-People do not exist, and anyone you may meet are merely a figment of your imagination. In fact, you yourself dont exist.

In this space, lets assume[/u] there are a finite number of worlds .

You know what they say about assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.

You can't prove something thats based on an assumption.

If you look at my possible conclusions, you'll see that I took that into account.

"2-there are infinate worlds supporting life"

And I never said it was a proof either, it was just something I found amusing.

I figured I'd just provide some backing for the people not existing theory.

Going by some scientists beliefs, the universe stretches on infinately. This creates infinate space.

Most scientists don't claim that the universe is infinite. They generally prefer to stay out of things that no-one seems to know about for sure.

In this space, lets assume there are a finite number of worlds (as no other worlds with life have been discovered, there is nothing to go against this.)

To find the population of the universe, then, we'd do this.

infinite divided by finite.

which leaves us with something any mathematition can point out as 0.

You mean finite divided by infinite = 0

Also this would not provide the population of the universe. That would simply be:

(finite no. of life supporting worlds in universe) x (average population of worlds) = (finite population of universe) <-----(Equation 1)

What the value of zero would provide in this instance is the average number of organisms per unit of space. But this doesn't seem to make sense since there are definately more than zero organisms in the universe as indicated in the assumptions and this number is finite as indicated by (Equation 1). This means that if you are teleported to a random area of space the probability of there being at least one life supporting planet within 10000000000000000000000000000000 miles of you is zero.

These results are seemingly contradictory but they do make sense. I can't explain why but if you use your intuition you might be able to see the reason for this (when dealing with infinity even mathematicians are forced to use their intuition as you can't always write a set of equations to prove something).

BTW I'm doing a 3 year course in mathematics so I guess you could call me a mathematician?

"But this doesn't seem to make sense since there are definately more than zero organisms in the universe as indicated in the assumptions and this number is finite as indicated by (Equation 1)."

I was thinking that this would work to disprove one of the original assumptions, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks.  :wink: