My Journey

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 16, 2016, 05:19:33 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 02:03:04 AM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

That's why I'm here.  Someday, if you don't turn away from the flat earth, you will be in the same place as your grandfather, teaching your children or grandchildren that the earth is flat, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and permanently poisoning their minds with your seeming wisdom.  They will grow up to scorn our greatest achievements, and encourage others to do the same, living in constant paranoia of an organization they have no valid reason to distrust.  They will be wrong, as you and your grandfather are wrong in ways beyond what either of you could comprehend.  I can't afford not to try and set the record straight.

First - I have no paranoia- or at least there is no evidence of any in the posts I have written. If you have evidence of such please paste it into this site and refer to it please. The reason I have no paranoia is because, as the poet wrote "I fear nothing with the sword of truth and light in my hand."

Let me say in all humility that I have nothing to boast or brag about with regards to my own achievements.  My parents did all they could to prepare me (and subject to the human condition they made mistakes in rearing me; but blessedly few). However when you refer to my Grandfather and trying to save future generations from his "poisonous" knowledge I judge you lacking in credentials and standing to say such.

My grandfather started life in a Welsh coal mine at the age of 8 gathering coal in tubs. He was lowered via a bucket into a deep mine shaft and sent pulling a tub, on a track. into the crevices. The mine owners favored small children because they the could squeeze into small coal seams that adults could not get fit into. Accidents were common and included flooding, cave ins and explosions. These accidents were all to common and a visit to  these old mining town's graveyards would show you the number of young who died whilst working for less than a shilling a day. However my grandfather's personality, despite these trials, was ebullient and his mind brilliant and creative. He had a mechanical aptitude bordered on genius or perhaps strayed over that border.  According to a story he told me one afternoon after his shift (for he worked a 12 hour shift that ended at noon)- the conveyor on the tipple broke. This made  it impossible to move the coal to the waiting railway lorries. Like a monkey he scampered up it and had the foreman throw him some tools. Within 10 minutes fixed the problem before you could say "Jack be Quick". The foreman took notice of this an pulled him out of the "scamper work" as it was called.  Eventually at age 15 he was leading the mine repair team and, making friends with the head mine engineer,, begin learning to use the surveyors transit as work on the mines expanded. He was apparently so engaging that the owner of the mine allowed him to sit for his technical licensure and earn his a surveyor.'s license Along the way he devised a better mechanical method for sorting coal (important in those days since the higher grade of coal was sold for home heating earnings the mine higher profits) and had enough sense (and had saved enough money) to apply for a patent.  He learned to read by attending Methodist Sunday School each week and honed those skills by reading technical manuals (relating to coal production) at night; apparently subsiding on less than three hours of sleep per night (a habit that persisted until the day he died).

His acumen was so impressive that four mine owners invested in his new enterprise which he started at age 20 to manufacture this new sorting apparatus and by age 25 his company employed over 200 people with enough annual turnover and profits to make him wealthy (a relative term I must admit). His own regret was his own lack of formal educational and he insisted that his daughter (his only issue) and grand children (that would include me) receive the finest education possible.  This in a time when women were considered fit only for laughing and batting their eyes and having babies.  His home (now sadly out of the family due to the Inland Revenue Services demand that exorbitant  Estate Taxes be paid) had a library (which I mentioned earlier) that was full to the brim with volumes on every subject. How I loved that room with the shelves overflowing with tomes and stacks of papers and books laying haphazardly everywhere.

I assume your moniker as "student" is correct and that your age, most probably, is under one score. Youth has the habit over overestimating their knowledge and import. There is nothing wrong with this, it is simply a truism. But having said this I suspect you would do better than to call my grandfather's knowledge poison since he had accomplished more at the age of 25 than you,  or most people, especially given his humble starting circumstances. I say this humbly knowing that my own accomplishments pale next to his.

Listen, I mean no disrespect to your grandfather.  I understand that you hold him close, and seeing his backstory, I can tell that he was obviously someone to look up to.  But that demonstrates how potent and infectious flat earth theory can be: even the best of us are not immune.  Just because someone was an exceptional person does not mean that they were always correct.  Some of the greatest people we think of were actually deeply racist, sexist, homophobic, or any number of things that we find disgusting today.  Von Braun, a personal hero of mine, actually worked with the Nazis.  Your grandfather was a great man, who, at some point, neglected to give both sides their fair say, and as a result, gave over fully to the idea that the earth was flat.  And he passed that on to you.  Admire your heroes for their accomplishments and ideas, but recognize that they, too, are only human.

Thank you for the very kind post. It demonstrates that we can disagree vehemently yet treat each other with respect.  Thank you very sincerely for those comments.

Sir Richard,

I'm not going to disparage your world view,  it's you opinion and you are entitled to think what you like.  I found you story way too twee, and I think it's a product of your delusional state of mind that you probably genuinely believe your own stories. 

News flash,  the earth is not flat,  never has been.   Ptolemy ( a famous geocentrist)  never believed the earth to be flat.   You can argue heliocentric vs geocentric, and ultimately it doesn't change the relative motions of the sun earth and the planets.  Either one will do the same job.   Occams Razor prefers heliocentric.

I encourage you to continue your research,  be sure to let us know it you find conclusive proof of a flat earth.

You speak with the a surety of one who has yet to be tested in life. I would suggest a very fine contemporary book (there are few books written after 1957 or so that I would highly recommend- but this is one) entitled:
"Your Deceptive Mind" by  Professor Steven Novella MD. a fellow at Yale University and apparently, a neuro-surgeon of some renown in the United States.

The book begins with Aristotle and really explores "what can we know?"  It turns out we can know NOTHING, with any certainty at all.  The book ends at the same place it begins... with Aristotle. A must read book for many on this board who are enthralled with the 'certainty of science" who do not realize that their "brains" are not reliable- not at all and cognition of this is the first step in curing the "Chronic Disease of certainty" so rampant here and other places beside.

We can learn many things to a certain degree of certainty. After a certain point of certainty, the scientific community certainly accepts certain things as certain for the sake of simplicity.

Sir Richard,

 ... it's you opinion and you are entitled to think what you like.  I found you story way too twee, and I think it's a product of your delusional state of mind that you probably genuinely believe your own stories. 

This could have been well said of me (Born in the 20th Century but a Victorian in both temperament and outlook) I do admit freely:
"He was, as has been well said, an Elizabethan born out of time; in the days of Drake his very faults might have counted to his credit." Sir Francis Burton

We can learn many things to a certain degree of certainty. After a certain point of certainty, the scientific community certainly accepts certain things as certain for the sake of simplicity.

You would do well to purchase the book mentioned afore, used for a nice price, and read it most carefully.

Quote from: palmerito0 on March 16, 2016, 08:04:38 AM

We can learn many things to a certain degree of certainty. After a certain point of certainty, the scientific community certainly accepts certain things as certain for the sake of simplicity.

You would do well to purchase the book mentioned afore, used for a nice price, and read it most carefully.

Could you post a TL:DR? I don't have time to read it right now.

You sound like a smart guy and obviously inquisitive.  Here's my analysis; for whatever reason your grandfather left a mighty impression on you as a child.  You took what he said with all seriousness.  You need to separate your emotional connection from the reality we are faced with.  Taking your kind of reasoning you can question any theory, but skepticism is not equivalent to erudition.  You still have to reconcile far too much to make your theory even slightly plausible. 

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?” Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

In defense of the heliocentric Point of view I propose a crude model where we use a soccer field place a lantern in center field the light is omni directional, elevate the lantern to I level. We mark 12 points in the fashion of a clock face from the radius of centerfield to edge the field each mark representing the months of the year.
1. the lantern represents Player one the sun.
2. you the earth will be player two starting on one of the points, to have a 24 hour day, you rotate in place, night time is when you are facing away from the lantern. day time is when you are facing the lantern.  At night as you face away from the lantern at each point you are looking at a different set of bleachers, that represent the  zodiac.
3. Player three will be a soccer ball, Mark the ball with a face, the face will always face you, this will represent the moon. Holding  the ball in  your outstretched hand, as the moon  is seen in the daylight Time as  often as it is seen in the nighttime if you look for it. Facing the lantern 
move the ball from right to left watching the lights cast upon the ball, this being the phases of the Moon as seen during the daytime, to have a solar eclipse, move the ball directly in front of the lantern. At night facing away from the lantern Holy the ball out stretched moving it to right to left watching the light on the ball, you will see the phases on the ball representing the phases of the Moon. now you can move ball to a place where your head cast a shadow on the ball, hence a lunar eclipse.
This can be repeated at each point, but I do not see that being necessary but you should at least go to each point and do one day.
Now for the flat Earth, I lay myself down on the field just outside the center circle. As I do not know how the flat Earth works. I will leave it to you, to put it the details.
To have a believable model you must have the causes of the eclipses both solar and lunar, the changes from day tonight, changes of The zodiac, and the phases of the Moon. As I have represented with my crewed model.
Are you up to the challenge?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2016, 03:02:41 AM

Sir Richard,

I'm not going to disparage your world view,  it's you opinion and you are entitled to think what you like.  I found you story way too twee, and I think it's a product of your delusional state of mind that you probably genuinely believe your own stories. 

News flash,  the earth is not flat,  never has been.   Ptolemy ( a famous geocentrist)  never believed the earth to be flat.   You can argue heliocentric vs geocentric, and ultimately it doesn't change the relative motions of the sun earth and the planets.  Either one will do the same job.   Occams Razor prefers heliocentric.

I encourage you to continue your research,  be sure to let us know it you find conclusive proof of a flat earth.

You speak with the a surety of one who has yet to be tested in life. I would suggest a very fine contemporary book (there are few books written after 1957 or so that I would highly recommend- but this is one) entitled:
"Your Deceptive Mind" by  Professor Steven Novella MD. a fellow at Yale University and apparently, a neuro-surgeon of some renown in the United States.

The book begins with Aristotle and really explores "what can we know?"  It turns out we can know NOTHING, with any certainty at all.  The book ends at the same place it begins... with Aristotle. A must read book for many on this board who are enthralled with the 'certainty of science" who do not realize that their "brains" are not reliable- not at all and cognition of this is the first step in curing the "Chronic Disease of certainty" so rampant here and other places beside.

I have just one question for you,  do you believe in objective reality?

PS.   What was your summation of chapters 19 and 20 of "Your Deceptive MInd"?

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?” Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

In defense of the heliocentric Point of view I propose a crude model where we use a soccer field place a lantern in center field the light is omni directional, elevate the lantern to I level. We mark 12 points in the fashion of a clock face from the radius of centerfield to edge the field each mark representing the months of the year.
1. the lantern represents Player one the sun.
2. you the earth will be player two starting on one of the points, to have a 24 hour day, you rotate in place, night time is when you are facing away from the lantern. day time is when you are facing the lantern.  At night as you face away from the lantern at each point you are looking at a different set of bleachers, that represent the  zodiac.
3. Player three will be a soccer ball, Mark the ball with a face, the face will always face you, this will represent the moon. Holding  the ball in  your outstretched hand, as the moon  is seen in the daylight Time as  often as it is seen in the nighttime if you look for it. Facing the lantern 
move the ball from right to left watching the lights cast upon the ball, this being the phases of the Moon as seen during the daytime, to have a solar eclipse, move the ball directly in front of the lantern. At night facing away from the lantern Holy the ball out stretched moving it to right to left watching the light on the ball, you will see the phases on the ball representing the phases of the Moon. now you can move ball to a place where your head cast a shadow on the ball, hence a lunar eclipse.
This can be repeated at each point, but I do not see that being necessary but you should at least go to each point and do one day.
Now for the flat Earth, I lay myself down on the field just outside the center circle. As I do not know how the flat Earth works. I will leave it to you, to put it the details.
To have a believable model you must have the causes of the eclipses both solar and lunar, the changes from day tonight, changes of The zodiac, and the phases of the Moon. As I have represented with my crewed model.
Are you up to the challenge?

I can only assume that you missed this, can you see how it works?

Quote from: MouseWalker on March 16, 2016, 01:09:50 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?” Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

In defense of the heliocentric Point of view I propose a crude model where we use a soccer field place a lantern in center field the light is omni directional, elevate the lantern to I level. We mark 12 points in the fashion of a clock face from the radius of centerfield to edge the field each mark representing the months of the year.
1. the lantern represents Player one the sun.
2. you the earth will be player two starting on one of the points, to have a 24 hour day, you rotate in place, night time is when you are facing away from the lantern. day time is when you are facing the lantern.  At night as you face away from the lantern at each point you are looking at a different set of bleachers, that represent the  zodiac.
3. Player three will be a soccer ball, Mark the ball with a face, the face will always face you, this will represent the moon. Holding  the ball in  your outstretched hand, as the moon  is seen in the daylight Time as  often as it is seen in the nighttime if you look for it. Facing the lantern 
move the ball from right to left watching the lights cast upon the ball, this being the phases of the Moon as seen during the daytime, to have a solar eclipse, move the ball directly in front of the lantern. At night facing away from the lantern Holy the ball out stretched moving it to right to left watching the light on the ball, you will see the phases on the ball representing the phases of the Moon. now you can move ball to a place where your head cast a shadow on the ball, hence a lunar eclipse.
This can be repeated at each point, but I do not see that being necessary but you should at least go to each point and do one day.
Now for the flat Earth, I lay myself down on the field just outside the center circle. As I do not know how the flat Earth works. I will leave it to you, to put it the details.
To have a believable model you must have the causes of the eclipses both solar and lunar, the changes from day tonight, changes of The zodiac, and the phases of the Moon. As I have represented with my crewed model.
Are you up to the challenge?

It seems you are describing football and a most dizzying analogy. Simply put the aether rotates

I can only assume that you missed this, can you see how it works?

Certainly but rather than plough this ground for the 1,000 th time on the entire theory why don't you first read through the wiki on the site and then focus on aspect to debate. You are asking me to eat six main courses at once which will be neither pleasurable nor possible.  The, admittedly, unwritten convention on the Debate section is that we debate one thing at a time.

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Quote from: MouseWalker on March 19, 2016, 12:58:02 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on March 16, 2016, 01:09:50 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?” Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

In defense of the heliocentric Point of view I propose a crude model where we use a soccer field place a lantern in center field the light is omni directional, elevate the lantern to I level. We mark 12 points in the fashion of a clock face from the radius of centerfield to edge the field each mark representing the months of the year.
1. the lantern represents Player one the sun.
2. you the earth will be player two starting on one of the points, to have a 24 hour day, you rotate in place, night time is when you are facing away from the lantern. day time is when you are facing the lantern.  At night as you face away from the lantern at each point you are looking at a different set of bleachers, that represent the  zodiac.
3. Player three will be a soccer ball, Mark the ball with a face, the face will always face you, this will represent the moon. Holding  the ball in  your outstretched hand, as the moon  is seen in the daylight Time as  often as it is seen in the nighttime if you look for it. Facing the lantern 
move the ball from right to left watching the lights cast upon the ball, this being the phases of the Moon as seen during the daytime, to have a solar eclipse, move the ball directly in front of the lantern. At night facing away from the lantern Holy the ball out stretched moving it to right to left watching the light on the ball, you will see the phases on the ball representing the phases of the Moon. now you can move ball to a place where your head cast a shadow on the ball, hence a lunar eclipse.
This can be repeated at each point, but I do not see that being necessary but you should at least go to each point and do one day.
Now for the flat Earth, I lay myself down on the field just outside the center circle. As I do not know how the flat Earth works. I will leave it to you, to put it the details.
To have a believable model you must have the causes of the eclipses both solar and lunar, the changes from day tonight, changes of The zodiac, and the phases of the Moon. As I have represented with my crewed model.
Are you up to the challenge?

It seems you are describing football and a most dizzying analogy. Simply put the aether rotates

I can only assume that you missed this, can you see how it works?

Certainly but rather than plough this ground for the 1,000 th time on the entire theory why don't you first read through the wiki on the site and then focus on aspect to debate. You are asking me to eat six main courses at once which will be neither pleasurable nor possible.  The, admittedly, unwritten convention on the Debate section is that we debate one thing at a time.

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

The what I did was, that I presented you with a model of globe Earth, that explains observations.

What I asked of you, as an engineer, present me with a model, that demonstrates the observations that I made from a flat earth points of view.

Or dispute my model and it's working.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 16, 2016, 07:47:01 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2016, 03:02:41 AM

Sir Richard,

I'm not going to disparage your world view,  it's you opinion and you are entitled to think what you like.  I found you story way too twee, and I think it's a product of your delusional state of mind that you probably genuinely believe your own stories. 

News flash,  the earth is not flat,  never has been.   Ptolemy ( a famous geocentrist)  never believed the earth to be flat.   You can argue heliocentric vs geocentric, and ultimately it doesn't change the relative motions of the sun earth and the planets.  Either one will do the same job.   Occams Razor prefers heliocentric.

I encourage you to continue your research,  be sure to let us know it you find conclusive proof of a flat earth.

You speak with the a surety of one who has yet to be tested in life. I would suggest a very fine contemporary book (there are few books written after 1957 or so that I would highly recommend- but this is one) entitled:
"Your Deceptive Mind" by  Professor Steven Novella MD. a fellow at Yale University and apparently, a neuro-surgeon of some renown in the United States.

The book begins with Aristotle and really explores "what can we know?"  It turns out we can know NOTHING, with any certainty at all.  The book ends at the same place it begins... with Aristotle. A must read book for many on this board who are enthralled with the 'certainty of science" who do not realize that their "brains" are not reliable- not at all and cognition of this is the first step in curing the "Chronic Disease of certainty" so rampant here and other places beside.

I have just one question for you,  do you believe in objective reality?

PS.   What was your summation of chapters 19 and 20 of "Your Deceptive MInd"?

I'll take the failure to answer as a no.   Then follow up with another question,  have you actually read and understood the book you are referencing?

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth.  Let's have some detail, rather than your usual rambling about your family and how modern technology apparently baffles you.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2016, 06:20:49 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 16, 2016, 07:47:01 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2016, 03:02:41 AM

Sir Richard,

I'm not going to disparage your world view,  it's you opinion and you are entitled to think what you like.  I found you story way too twee, and I think it's a product of your delusional state of mind that you probably genuinely believe your own stories. 

News flash,  the earth is not flat,  never has been.   Ptolemy ( a famous geocentrist)  never believed the earth to be flat.   You can argue heliocentric vs geocentric, and ultimately it doesn't change the relative motions of the sun earth and the planets.  Either one will do the same job.   Occams Razor prefers heliocentric.

I encourage you to continue your research,  be sure to let us know it you find conclusive proof of a flat earth.

You speak with the a surety of one who has yet to be tested in life. I would suggest a very fine contemporary book (there are few books written after 1957 or so that I would highly recommend- but this is one) entitled:
"Your Deceptive Mind" by  Professor Steven Novella MD. a fellow at Yale University and apparently, a neuro-surgeon of some renown in the United States.

The book begins with Aristotle and really explores "what can we know?"  It turns out we can know NOTHING, with any certainty at all.  The book ends at the same place it begins... with Aristotle. A must read book for many on this board who are enthralled with the 'certainty of science" who do not realize that their "brains" are not reliable- not at all and cognition of this is the first step in curing the "Chronic Disease of certainty" so rampant here and other places beside.

I have just one question for you,  do you believe in objective reality?

PS.   What was your summation of chapters 19 and 20 of "Your Deceptive MInd"?

I'll take the failure to answer as a no.   Then follow up with another question,  have you actually read and understood the book you are referencing?

Yes I believe in objective reality. Of course that begs the question, as we say, of what is objective reality. I shall start another thread on this subject alone of course.
Chapters 19/20
Chapter 19- is a very excellent discussion of "how" our brains are wired to warn us of danger and why, we as humans, in objective tests, will focus on explanations for events that occur. The author suggests that evolution selected for this very trait, the ability to sort things out that occur. For example he uses a stone age, modern tribe, giving, I do believe, in the jungles of Borneo. They tribe has a taboo of making camp under large trees because of "evil spirits" that inhabit the trees and can escape at night. This might sound very silly to modern western ears. It turns out, however, that this belief has merit in terms of survival. These large aboral trees are actually rooted (in this rain forest) in very thin soil covering rock, which, it turns out, makes it difficult for tree roots to make significant purchase. As these trees gets larger and larger the amount of wind required to blow one down becomes less in an inverse ratio to the size of the tree. Thus sleeping under a tree is much, much riskier than tenting in England at a wilderness trust. So the tribes "taboo' about camping under trees is well placed and is used as an example of how our minds will "explain" the unexplainable. In this case the mind (of the tribe) constructed an explanation, although not true in a narrow sense, is actually true in a practical sense. So this is but one example the author uses of describing how the human mind, even when it is wrong, evolved and developed skills to promote survival by noticing patterns and developing "theories" about how and when events could occur.

As for conspiracies the same is true. For example the idea that a runt of a person with few achievements other than a failed immigration to the U.S.S.R could strike down one of the great figures of the 20th century is something to which our minds, given the evolution described in the paragraph above, is unable to accept.

Furthermore the mind evolved in more primitive and brutish times. When a saber tooth tiger is bearing down on you , with its large fangs bared, those that survived such  an encounter, were not the sort that ruminated on how saber toothed tigers canine teeth that were shaped differently than the cave lion and how the jaw of a saber tooth allowed differing, but none the less, effective forces to be transmitted through the teeth to the prey. No, it is theorized, the brains of the survivors, by passed the long term (and important) reasoning centers of the brain and without a cogent thought had the poor individual in question running with all their might towards the nearest tree. The bypassing of the frontal lobes, in emergencies, in favor of the hippocampus (if my poor notes serve me well) is why, after a traumatic event or accident, survivors will say "I just acted, I did not think." In point of fact when surveying the survivors of a tragic ferry accident, in the Baltic Sea, (the details that I cannot remember), it was shown that those who sprung into action first had a far greater chance of survival than those who tried to "think through" the situation (trained crew excepted).
This is why I do NOT accept the "dark grand" conspiracy theory of NASA and Big Brother posited by some flat earth's. Rather my view of NASA is like that of MI 6 which I do believe is a better analogy. I have posted my details views of this else where.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 19, 2016, 03:11:46 PM

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth.  Let's have some detail, rather than your usual rambling about your family and how modern technology apparently baffles you.

Why do you think modern technology baffles me. I have made no such statement nor do I hold such sentiment. Your habit of putting words in the mouths of your debate opponents (or more aptly typing words into the key board of ones opponents) does you, nor your arguments, no credit. This is tendency I have observed, for which I am now making a general statement about, is only exceeded by your lack of willingness to understand the exact meaning of words/phrases you and others use, and the related tendency of making an argument against propositions that have not been offered nor even considered by your opponent (perhaps you might do a Google Internet Search of the term "Straw man argument for a fuller explanation of my point."

At this point I will point to a quote from Dr. Samuel Johnson regarding the tragic fate of Richard Savage a brilliant writer who personal defects doomed him and his works to tragedy and obscurity. Despite the evident qualities, esteemed by Dr. Johnson, he didst rue Savage's flaws, which in the short time I have been reading your writings, might be of use to you. Methinks you might consider investing a few pounds in a copy of Dr. Johnson's work "The Life of Savage" to help remediate the problems I see thus far in your arguments and thinking.
From the introduction to "The Life of Savage" by Dr. Samuel Johnson:

"That affluence and power, advantages extrinsick and adventitious, and therefore easily separable from those by whom they are possessed, should very often flatter the mind with expectations of felicity which they cannot give, raises no astonishment: but it seems rational to hope that intellectual greatness should produce better effects; that minds qualified for great attainments should first endeavour their own benefit; and that they who are most able to teach others the way to happiness should with most certainty follow it themselves.

But this expectation, however plausible, has been very frequently disappointed. The heroes of literary as well as civil history have been very often no less remarkable for what [they have suffered than for what] they have atchieved; and volumes have been written only to enumerate the miseries of the learned, and relate their unhappy lives and untimely deaths.

 To these mournful narratives I am about to add the Life of Richard Savage, a man whose writings entitle him to an eminent rank in the classes of learning, and whose misfortunes claim a degree of compassion not always due to the unhappy."

Why do you think.... ****waffle waffle waffle****[/i]

Duly noted how you didn't even attempt to answer a simple direct question:

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth

Instead we get endless blathering. It sounds like you're trying to espouse a philosophy of some kind, not explain how your FE 'model' works. If so, kindly take your pretentious facade to the Complete Nonsense sub-forum.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 21, 2016, 06:49:18 AM

Why do you think.... ****waffle waffle waffle****[/i]

Duly noted how you didn't even attempt to answer a simple direct question:

Quote

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth

Instead we get endless blathering. It sounds like you're trying to espouse a philosophy of some kind, not explain how your FE 'model' works. If so, kindly take your pretentious facade to the Complete Nonsense sub-forum.

First, although fully retired, I have responsibilities other than one of checking this forum every odd minute to determine whether you have asked a question that must be answered post haste.

In answer to your question- I refer you very simply to the work of the natural philosopher Samuel Rowboatham who in his work "Earth Not a Globe" answers this question (as to why I have to keep answering questions which are clearly answered in the Wiki here is simply beyond comprehension; sometimes, candidly, I feel like Sisyphus but such is my burden and I shan't complain any further).

From his work (accessible as I said before by referring to the papers archive on this board):

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last. The farthest light in a row of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude. Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or noon-day position.”
He goes on to write
"Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. This arises from a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend as it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower, or nearer to the horizon than the last.

The farthest light in a row of lamps appears the lowest, although each one has the same altitude. Bearing these phenomena in mind, it will easily be seen how the Sun, although always parallel to the surface of the Earth, must appear to ascend when approaching, and descend after leaving the meridian or noon-day position.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 20, 2016, 04:20:36 AM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 19, 2016, 03:11:46 PM

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth.  Let's have some detail, rather than your usual rambling about your family and how modern technology apparently baffles you.

Why do you think modern technology baffles me.

blah...blah...blah..blah...copy paste....

tl&dr

I think modern technology baffles you, because you keep going on about it.  You say that you can't operate a scanner without your daughter being present.

First, although full retired,

You are full something, I'll give you that.

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface......

...more copy paste

We are all familiar with "Earth Not a Globe" here, there is no need to copy pasta Rowbotham's nonsense.  How about you try to debate in your own words?  He explanation does not tell us why anything should ever drop below the horizon.  Even at 10,000 miles away, the sun would still be clearly 17 degrees above the horizon.  How far away do you think it has to be to be before it actually drops below it?

What Rowbotham also doesn't explain is how the sun stays the same apparent size all day, whether it is directly overhead or thousands of miles away.  Why doesn't the sun get small at sunset?  How do you explain this:

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 21, 2016, 06:49:18 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 20, 2016, 04:20:36 AM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 19, 2016, 03:11:46 PM

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth.  Let's have some detail, rather than your usual rambling about your family and how modern technology apparently baffles you.

Why do you think modern technology baffles me.

blah...blah...blah..blah...copy paste....

tl&dr

I think modern technology baffles you, because you keep going on about it.  You say that you can't operate a scanner without your daughter being present.

Quote

First, although full retired,

You are full something, I'll give you that.

Quote

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface......

...more copy paste

We are all familiar with "Earth Not a Globe" here, there is no need to copy pasta Rowbotham's nonsense.  How about you try to debate in your own words?  He explanation does not tell us why anything should ever drop below the horizon.  Even at 10,000 miles away, the sun would still be clearly 17 degrees above the horizon.  How far away do you think it has to be to be before it actually drops below it?

What Rowbotham also doesn't explain is how the sun stays the same apparent size all day, whether it is directly overhead or thousands of miles away.  Why doesn't the sun get small at sunset?  How do you explain this:

I have explained such at least 30 times on this fair board.
You really should read "The Life Of Richard Savage" his uncouth habits and his alienation of all those he knew caused him to come to great grief.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?”

Oh, hello Mr. Big Words! You don't need long words to seem smart, you need good ideas. Just getting that out of the way.

We don't storm and rant about how you challenge academia. The scientific community can be wrong in the theories it holds up, and there are normally rather large storms when said theories are debunked.

However, we are in a different situation. You are not challenging academia, rather you are challenging massive mounds of evidence which stands against your position (which you manage to dodge in some way or another.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

No. It sounds like you're giving instructions of how to shackle yourself into a small worldview and ignorance.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

   Based on what is admittedly a small sample size of comments I have inferred that most “helios” (as I will refer to those who think the earth orbits the sun) believe that Flat Earthers (Fes) are uneducated and ignorant. This indeed may be true- since I have no way of really knowing the bonafides of those FEs on the board, or elsewhere, (other than those who have published their views and their true identities). I want to make it clear that educated, and uneducated, people can be wrong headed or geniuses in equal proportion. Bill Gates is an uneducated (formally) genius who dropped out of Harvard. So education is no guarantor of either genius or stupidity; to be clear.

The reason we believe you are ignorant is that you ignore centuries of work and large amounts of evidence which point towards a round earth.

Yet, on the other hand, you refuse centuries of pre-Copernican studies.
The kingdom of heavens will be yours.

Quote from: palmerito0 on March 15, 2016, 01:26:17 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?”

Oh, hello Mr. Big Words! You don't need long words to seem smart, you need good ideas. Just getting that out of the way.

We don't storm and rant about how you challenge academia. The scientific community can be wrong in the theories it holds up, and there are normally rather large storms when said theories are debunked.

However, we are in a different situation. You are not challenging academia, rather you are challenging massive mounds of evidence which stands against your position (which you manage to dodge in some way or another.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

No. It sounds like you're giving instructions of how to shackle yourself into a small worldview and ignorance.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

   Based on what is admittedly a small sample size of comments I have inferred that most “helios” (as I will refer to those who think the earth orbits the sun) believe that Flat Earthers (Fes) are uneducated and ignorant. This indeed may be true- since I have no way of really knowing the bonafides of those FEs on the board, or elsewhere, (other than those who have published their views and their true identities). I want to make it clear that educated, and uneducated, people can be wrong headed or geniuses in equal proportion. Bill Gates is an uneducated (formally) genius who dropped out of Harvard. So education is no guarantor of either genius or stupidity; to be clear.

The reason we believe you are ignorant is that you ignore centuries of work and large amounts of evidence which point towards a round earth.

Yet, on the other hand, you refuse centuries of pre-Copernican studies.
The kingdom of heavens will be yours.

well said there are very many scholastics who absolutely support, in the most unequivocal way, the theory of the flat earth.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 21, 2016, 06:49:18 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on March 20, 2016, 04:20:36 AM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 19, 2016, 03:11:46 PM

So why don't you pick one phenomena or aspect of either the helio-centric theory or the FE theory and lets us discuss it in the particulars and then in how it fits, or does not.

Without resorting to hand wavey explanations such as "it's the aether wot done it", explain how sunsets occur on a flat earth.  Let's have some detail, rather than your usual rambling about your family and how modern technology apparently baffles you.

Why do you think modern technology baffles me.

blah...blah...blah..blah...copy paste....

tl&dr

I think modern technology baffles you, because you keep going on about it.  You say that you can't operate a scanner without your daughter being present.

Quote

First, although full retired,

You are full something, I'll give you that.

Quote

“Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface......

...more copy paste

We are all familiar with "Earth Not a Globe" here, there is no need to copy pasta Rowbotham's nonsense.  How about you try to debate in your own words?  He explanation does not tell us why anything should ever drop below the horizon.  Even at 10,000 miles away, the sun would still be clearly 17 degrees above the horizon.  How far away do you think it has to be to be before it actually drops below it?

What Rowbotham also doesn't explain is how the sun stays the same apparent size all day, whether it is directly overhead or thousands of miles away.  Why doesn't the sun get small at sunset?  How do you explain this:

Must be the "Aether"...!

I have explained such at least 30 times on this fair board.

If by "30 times" you mean "never", then that would be accurate.

Most of your posts are just copy and paste blather, with little attempt to explain anything at all.  If you can't answer the question, it is acceptable to just say "I don't know".

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 21, 2016, 01:27:51 PM

I have explained such at least 30 times on this fair board.

If by "30 times" you mean "never", then that would be accurate.

Most of your posts are just copy and paste blather, with little attempt to explain anything at all.  If you can't answer the question, it is acceptable to just say "I don't know".

You really must read Johnson's "Life of Savage" it would be of great help to you in your life I can assure you. Based on what I have read of your writings here it really would be a good tonic for you.

Actually I have answered this question myself. In addition it is addressed in the wiki on this fair site if one but took the trouble to do a bit of work.

Quote from: palmerito0 on March 15, 2016, 01:26:17 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

My journey to the Flat Earth

Our human frailty displays most itself vituperatively when we are confronted with ideas that contradict those closely beliefs that we have invested our lives in. This frailty is on display daily at the Flat Earth Society Forum as helio-centrists storm and rant at those who dare challenge mainstream academia. One question that seem to be asked over and over is “how can you believe such (expletive deleted)?”

Oh, hello Mr. Big Words! You don't need long words to seem smart, you need good ideas. Just getting that out of the way.

We don't storm and rant about how you challenge academia. The scientific community can be wrong in the theories it holds up, and there are normally rather large storms when said theories are debunked.

However, we are in a different situation. You are not challenging academia, rather you are challenging massive mounds of evidence which stands against your position (which you manage to dodge in some way or another.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

Although I am certain that this question is merely rhetorical for most I am going to attempt to answer it for the minority who are sincerely interested in how one makes the journey form helio-centrist ( a “helio”) to a flat earther (a “FE”). Perhaps this will assist those who earnestly desire to break off the shackles of ignorance and see the world as it truly is!

No. It sounds like you're giving instructions of how to shackle yourself into a small worldview and ignorance.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 15, 2016, 05:30:37 AM

   Based on what is admittedly a small sample size of comments I have inferred that most “helios” (as I will refer to those who think the earth orbits the sun) believe that Flat Earthers (Fes) are uneducated and ignorant. This indeed may be true- since I have no way of really knowing the bonafides of those FEs on the board, or elsewhere, (other than those who have published their views and their true identities). I want to make it clear that educated, and uneducated, people can be wrong headed or geniuses in equal proportion. Bill Gates is an uneducated (formally) genius who dropped out of Harvard. So education is no guarantor of either genius or stupidity; to be clear.

The reason we believe you are ignorant is that you ignore centuries of work and large amounts of evidence which point towards a round earth.

Yet, on the other hand, you refuse centuries of pre-Copernican studies.
The kingdom of heavens will be yours.

How do "Pre-Copernican" studies help when we already have Satellites, the ISS, 50 years of space travel...we know the earth is round so I'm not exactly sure what your "ancient" knowledge could shed any light on this argument.  However there are many of the ancient scientists and knowledge seekers were well aware that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun...go figure...

Actually I have answered this question myself.

No, you just continually avoid it.  Like you're doing now....

In addition it is addressed in the wiki on this fair site if one but took the trouble to do a bit of work.

Do your own work.

How do "Pre-Copernican" studies help when we already have Satellites, the ISS, 50 years of space travel...we know the earth is round so I'm not exactly sure what your "ancient" knowledge could shed any light on this argument.  However there are many of the ancient scientists and knowledge seekers were well aware that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun...go figure...
[/quote]
You say "we" but as you well know that does not include myself and others so there most likely a better way to express your sentiment rather than relying on what "we know", as if "we knowing it" proves that something is so. This violates basic rules of logical argument that is the reliance on "commonly held beliefs" to make such a belief true.

Yes there were some ancient natural philosophers the supported the round earth spinning globe theory but there were also many who did not.

Quote from: odvetnik_irsic on March 21, 2016, 02:09:48 PM

How do "Pre-Copernican" studies help when we already have Satellites, the ISS, 50 years of space travel...we know the earth is round so I'm not exactly sure what your "ancient" knowledge could shed any light on this argument.  However there are many of the ancient scientists and knowledge seekers were well aware that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun...go figure...

You say "we" but as you well know that does not include myself and others so there most likely a better way to express your sentiment rather than relying on what "we know", as if "we knowing it" proves that something is so. This violates basic rules of logical argument that is the reliance on "commonly held beliefs" to make such a belief true.

Yes there were some ancient natural philosophers the supported the round earth spinning globe theory but there were also many who did not.

You say "some ancient natural philosophers the supported the round earth spinning globe theory". I will agree that until after Copernicus most (at least Western) almost all "natural philosophers" took the earth as the centre of the universe. That was an "Article of Faith" in "The Church" (the Roman Catholic Church). But the shape of the earth is quite another matter! While the shape of the earth was never an "Article of Faith" and in the first couple of centuries there was considerable debate, the globe earth was generally accepted. Even in the Islamic world around 1,000 AD there were certainly prominent people that took it for granted that the earth is a globe. One such is Abu Rayhan al-Biruni referred to in AL BIRUNI’S MEASUREMENT ON THE EARTH. He not only "measured the earth", but gave his theories on the moon phases and lunar eclipses. See picture on right: For explanation of text etc, look at Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī (973–1048)

I think the consensus of the "ancient natural philosophers" seems in favour of the globe, and the rotating globe gained acceptance from Kepler's time on. What is interesting is that a lot of the data used by Kepler was gathered by Tycho Brahe who (as far as I can gather) was a firm believer in the Geocentric Globe.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 03:32:14 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 16, 2016, 03:27:18 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 02:49:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 16, 2016, 02:20:50 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on March 16, 2016, 02:16:09 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 16, 2016, 02:13:04 AM

What are your greatest achievements that you speak of?

Moon landings, space travel, and exploration of the universe. 

You're an astronaut?

No, I'm an aerospace engineering student.  But since you don't want to believe in what NASA does, and are actively working against them, we believers and supporters will keep the achievements to ourselves. 

You know the story of the little red hen, where she goes through all the work to bake the bread, and then gets to eat it herself because nobody else helped her?  You play the figurative fox that tries to accuse the hen of fraud for his own purposes.  No bread for you!

You probably just believe anything that your liberal teachers tell you.  Perhaps, one day, you could try using your own mind for a change?

I believe what the evidence supports. 

You believe whatever your wiki says. 

We have had several aerospace engineers here over the years who were flat Earthers.  They saw the light, and gave very good evidence against the globular Earth.  Do you think you are special or something?

I'd like to hear about those aerospace engineers you speak of.