I have already been called a troll a few times.
I find that term is used way too often by both sides in discussions here. Unfortunately, you need to develop a tougher hide if you want to participate in these forums.
Yes I started the thread by saying MY senses, I did not state 5 senses as another member assumed I use 5, and I also said in the title MY proof.
That's not proof at all. That's information interpreted in a way that confirms your own preconceived notion.
We all have different experiences, correct? I was born with thoughts of living under a dome; an aquarium. No one told me to believe that. No one ever mentioned it at such a young age.
I doubt you were born with any such thoughts. You applied your imagination as a toddler to the limited limited experiences you had by then, and created an explanation that made sense to you at the time.
I never asked my mom why the sky is blue. I assumed it was water above us.
You never asked questions about the world around you? Really? Didn't you wonder what the sun was and where it went at night? No curiosity at all?
I began school at 3 and I am guessing at 5 is when we began discussing the world. I already had my ideas about this world.
And, apparently, felt no reason whatsoever to listen to anyone else's ideas about the world for the next three decades and more.
That is why I freaked out and thought I could fall off of the ball late in life. My security was threatened. It really is that simple.
It just doesn't ring true that you had
never heard this until you were 40 and suddenly started to, then immediately tossed a lifetime of your own sensory experience that should have told you that you won't fall off the earth. This simply makes no sense whatsoever.
My vision doesn't just tell me a plane landed.
Yeah... if you watch a plane land, that's exactly what your vision is telling you. The
interpretation of what it
means is supplied by your mind, and, it sounds like, your emotions.
It is not that simple for me is clearly what no one understands and that is my fault because explaining that there are things I have known and I don't know why agitates people.
Maybe what you think you know is completely wrong. An adult with a kid (or kids) insisting to her peers that her understanding of the world developed as a pre-schooler was correct, despite all evidence to the contrary, would be, to put it mildly, a disconcerting to normally-functioning adults.
It is my opinion (no insult intended) that globalists have it made. You were told a story and that's it.
Well, yeah... the "story" actually explains everyday occurrences very elegantly and routinely makes useful and very accurate predictions about things hasn't happened yet. Want a prediction about when the moon will rise on some date in the future from some location you pick? Click
here [My usual go-to for this sort of information
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php seems to be unavailable at the moment.]
Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein figured the rest out. I along with other FE'rs are forced to bear the burden of proof, although it should be globalists bearing this burden.
Messrs. Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Einstein,
et al., have have already laid out a convincing case that the spherical earth and planets are orbiting the sun. The idea that the earth is a large sphere (large in human-scale terms, which is what your senses perceive) is entirely consistent with centuries of measurement and common observations, like how long it takes to get from place to place when traveling long distances. Overturning the massive amount of evidence that they were correct is indeed going to be a daunting challenge. You will need some very convincing data along with a model of the cosmos
that actually works to have any hope of making any inroads at all. In other words, it will take a lot more than "I just know an airplane can't land on a spinning spherical earth." Best of luck!
After all, this story of a sphere was not accepted until 500 years ago and without appropriate technology to prove a thing. Planes weren't even in existence.
Neither was NASA, but that doesn't stop a lot of posters here from claiming that most people believe "the earth is round" because "NASA tells us it is".
And, no, that "500 years" we sometimes hear is bogus. The notion that Columbus boldly set out to the west to reach the Far East despite "everyone knowing" the earth was flat is simply wrong. Columbus believed the earth was
smaller than most well-educated people of his time believed (correctly, as it turned out).
I give respect and listen and try to see possibilities in what people are trying to convey.
Yet you said you didn't do that at all up to age about 40. You claimed to be smugly oblivious to what was being taught in school; otherwise, why would you be clueless about why there were globes in classrooms.
I do not get the same respect. Instead I am called a troll. [Yeah, you said that. I don't like that sort of thing, either, but toughen up if you want to post here.] Of course my 5 senses alone are not used as my only source for knowing; however, I do trust my 6th more than all 5.
Sixth sense? Which one is that? You've referred to "heart" is some of your other posts. That's another expression for "emotion". Is that it?
My point in this particular paragraph is that I am not a troll for believing that I know something that we will eventually have proof for.
You believe you know something that will be shown to be true later. We hear that all the time, but there is no rational reason to expect that to happen, only wishful thinking. You also keep going on and on about 'proof'. Did you read the
article about the nature of 'proof' linked earlier?
The problem is that even a mention of some kind of proof makes the globalists (at least here) become more aggressive and name calling begins as a way to avoid a question I would like someone to answer.
People show up claiming "proof", "irrefutable proof", "undeniable proof", and similar all the time. Every one of them is not only wrong, but usually trivially wrong. It gets tiresome.
Why is it so hard to answer or give an opinion as to why; if we live on a ball, don't engineers account for curvature? Why don't bridges look like arcs unless by design?
How do you know they don't? Can you cite an instance where it would even be necessary, what would be affected, and how conventional engineering practices would have to be different?
Thanks for your response.
You're welcome.