Dark Moon

Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.

This is the most recent publication I could find
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Tychonian%20Society%20(Number%2044%20-%20July%201987).pdf

Its old, very old. published in 1984, its essentially trying to prove that ancient Christians and Jews believed the earth to be flat because of quotes he finds in the bible. Also, not peer reviewed.

Its proving the earth is flat the same way you prove that your car can fly because you watched "back to the future".

So are there any actual science publications where the authors are still alive?

Quote from: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 04:58:52 PM

Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.

This is the most recent publication I could find
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Tychonian%20Society%20(Number%2044%20-%20July%201987).pdf

Its old, very old. published in 1984, its essentially trying to prove that ancient Christians and Jews believed the earth to be flat because of quotes he finds in the bible. Also, not peer reviewed.

Its proving the earth is flat the same way you prove that your car can fly because you watched "back to the future".

So are there any actual science publications where the authors are still alive?

Since you quote that paper you might be interested in these comments about Robert Schadewald

The Flat-Earth Bible
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987)

Some readers have misinterpreted this document, supposing that Bob Schadewald is defending the idea that the earth is flat. That was not his intent. Some fundamentalist Christians are uncomfortable with the many passages in the Old Testament that seem to support the flat earth model, clearly contradicting abundant scientific evidence that the earth is a round and spinning ball. See: Is the earth a round, spinning ball. So they rationalize and re-interpret these passages to defend their faith that their Bible is without error. Bob, in this essay, tries to show that they can't get away with this cheap trick, for the writers of the Bible really did believe the earth to be flat. After all, the Old Testament was written by people with little interest in or knowledge of even the rudimentary scientific knowledge of their neighbors. They borrowed their myths and misinformation, without understanding.

The founders of the flat earth movement supported their ideas by reference to Biblical authority. But so did the defenders of the Koreshan Cosmogony, which modeled the earth as an unmoving hollow ball, with us walking on its inner surface and the entire universe also within it.

                        —Donald Simanek.

Robert Schadenfreude was no believer in the flat Earth but he does show that Old Testament is a "flat Earth book".
See  the book of his writings Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair By Robert J. Schadewald.
Sample pages can be read on-line at that link but to download needs the purchase of the eBook.

The Earth does appear flat on a very small local scale. The authors of the books that were collected into the Bible had no knowledge of geography outside of their own very local piece of it. They knew nothing of the wider world.

And the people who standardized the canon didn't even consider these books to be literally true. They merely authorized them as appropriate books to read. They regarded them as allegory and as testaments to the faith of the authors and the authors' communities. It wasn't until a millennium and a half later, in reaction to the corruption of the Church and the Pope, that Martin Luther decided that the Bible (rather than the Pope) should be the ultimate authority, and therefore should be taken literally.

So the Bible is not an authority on the shape of the world, or even on what people of the time believed about the shape of the world. Two centuries before the time of Jesus, the Greeks already know that the Earth is a sphere, and they knew with surprising accuracy how big it is.

Robert Schadenfreude was no believer in the flat Earth but he does show that Old Testament is a "flat Earth book".
See  the book of his writings Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair By Robert J. Schadewald.
Sample pages can be read on-line at that link but to download needs the purchase of the eBook.

Ah, what I figured, because the Author never seemed to make the claim the earth was flat.

But seeing as this is the Flat Earth Society, I figure that any publication with the word "Flat" in it; proves that the world is flat.
The crazy amount of mental gymnastics that people go through to make people "say" what they want them to say is incredible.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

And the book doesn't say what you claim it says. It doesn't say that the Earth is flat. It says that the authors of the Bible, who knew nothing about either geography or physics, and who knew nothing but a tiny patch of the Earth, thought it was flat. Of course, by the time of the New Testament, every educated person in the civilized world knew it is round, but the authors of the N.T. didn't care about anything but arguing about the nature of Jesus, and killing each other for holding different opinions about him. And arguing about and killing each other over the question of whether God was one person (Unitarians), three persons (Trinitarians) or many persons (Gnostics), or where there were two entirely separate Gods (Marcionites).

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

Who claimed otherwise?

But claiming that Robert Schadewald believed he was publishing "THE TRUTH" in his article:
The Flat-Earth Bible could hardly be further from the truth.

If he did consider it the truth he would hardly have included it in his book Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair by Robert J. Schadewald.

Robert J. Schadewald obviously regards "Flat Earthism" along with "Energy Scams" as one of the "Misguided Ideas".
So it is interesting "The Flat-Earth Bible" is included in you list of pamphlets and books.

Those interested in Robert Schadewald's thoughts on "flat Earthism" might read Bob Schadewald, The Plane Truth which can be read in its entirety on-line or purchased as an eBook.

So, where are these peer-reviewed papers supporting the modern flat Earth?

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

I cant find it cited anywhere, meaning either its not been peer reviewed or its been reviewed without being published.
But I am also not sure why anyone would want to peer review this, you just just read it and say, "okay sure". There is not much to review.
Not saying its junk, just not peer reviewed. A lot of papers that dont have much scientific impact are not peer reviewed. And any scientific paper talking about the flat earth will have zero scientific relevance.

Truth does not have an expiration date, but truth stays the Truth no matter what year it is. And for there not to be any modern studies providing evidence of a Flat Earth means that whatever claims where made before I was born are not being made now.
If Truth cant be backed up and repeatedly tested, it means its probably not the truth. This is the way of science.

So just on the basis that there are no scientific studies that you can show that is less than 10 years old proving the earth is Flat should raise quite a few eyebrows even for you. Surely there are crazy enough people out there with enough scientific literacy to be able to publish an actual Flat Earth study? But apparently not.

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2020, 11:02:50 AM

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

And the book doesn't say what you claim it says. It doesn't say that the Earth is flat. It says that the authors of the Bible, who knew nothing about either geography or physics, and who knew nothing but a tiny patch of the Earth, thought it was flat. Of course, by the time of the New Testament, every educated person in the civilized world knew it is round, but the authors of the N.T. didn't care about anything but arguing about the nature of Jesus, and killing each other for holding different opinions about him. And arguing about and killing each other over the question of whether God was one person (Unitarians), three persons (Trinitarians) or many persons (Gnostics), or where there were two entirely separate Gods (Marcionites).

I never claimed it said anything. I'm not the one that provided that book.

Where did I make such a claim?

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2020, 11:02:50 AM

Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

I cant find it cited anywhere, meaning either its not been peer reviewed or its been reviewed without being published.
But I am also not sure why anyone would want to peer review this, you just just read it and say, "okay sure". There is not much to review.
Not saying its junk, just not peer reviewed. A lot of papers that dont have much scientific impact are not peer reviewed. And any scientific paper talking about the flat earth will have zero scientific relevance.

Truth does not have an expiration date, but truth stays the Truth no matter what year it is. And for there not to be any modern studies providing evidence of a Flat Earth means that whatever claims where made before I was born are not being made now.
If Truth cant be backed up and repeatedly tested, it means its probably not the truth. This is the way of science.

So just on the basis that there are no scientific studies that you can show that is less than 10 years old proving the earth is Flat should raise quite a few eyebrows even for you. Surely there are crazy enough people out there with enough scientific literacy to be able to publish an actual Flat Earth study? But apparently not.

Robert Schadewald present a good argumentt that the Old Testament is a flat Earth book i've never heard him claim that this proves that the Earth is flat.

To find Robert Schadewald's thoughts on "modern flat Earthism" might read Bob Schadewald, The Plane Truth.
To read his opinion of Samuel Birley Rowbotham see his
Chapter 1: The Founding Father.
I'm surprised this Society and the one at TFES.org dares keep any of his work in their library - maybe no one's read "The Plane Truth".
Bulletin of the Tychonian Society (Number 44) Robert Schadewald

The Flat-Earth Bible
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987)

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

That depends on who you ask.

If you were in Middle Earth, then that truth doesn't stay true all the time.

For Middle Earth, Earth started flat, then the mortals pissed off the gods and they made Earth round.

Lots of truths are quite temporal, based upon the time they were made.

Who knows? I can only speak of personal observations from after I was born. Maybe Earth was flat in the time of the high prophet Row Boat and now it is curved.
According to some people, Earth is expanding, with it originally being quite small and now being quite large. That would also explain some of the claims of being able to see further than we should as Earth has now expanded and thus the curvature is smaller than it once was...

But more importantly, our knowledge and understanding changes over time. What some people think is true (with little or no evidence to support it) can later be shown to be wrong as we get a better understanding or more evidence.

For example, some ancient cultures had a fairly good FE model, which worked to explain the observations they made. You can get this model back by making a few simplifications to the current RE model, with perhaps the most significant being ignoring the vast majority of Earth.
So they thought Earth was flat.
But then with more "exchange" between cultures and more importantly regions, this stopped being such a good model as the larger the area used, the worse the FE model approximation becomes.

It isn't so much that the truth changes, but our understanding of the world does and it shows that what we previously thought of as a truth is only an approximation which has potentially outlived its usefulness.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2020, 12:51:18 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 10:38:52 PM

One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.

I dont think Mr Moonshrimp is well versed in chemistry.

So your theory is that Moonshrimp eat rocks? and then produce water?
Or where they in the water already?

We have a pretty good idea of where the water on the moon comes from seeing that its one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.

There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.

A quick examination of the light from the moon via spectral analysis puts paid to your wild light emitting shrimp based explanation.
Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.
It is all very well coming up with alternate ideas for natural phenomena but to explain away moonlight as something other than reflected sunlight is rather bonkers.

Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.

1000 years ago bad weather was caused
by no enough virgins being thrown into volcanoes,
as far as we knew.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 22, 2020, 02:22:16 AM

Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.

1000 years ago bad weather was caused
by no enough virgins being thrown into volcanoes,
as far as we knew.

Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes? Maybe they don't have to be virgins. I mean, did the people who used to throw virgins into volcanoes ever try, for example, throwing presidents into volcanoes? It certainly couldn't hurt to try. Even if it didn't fix global warming it would help in other ways. 

Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes?

I am afraid that if I continue to explore the joke potential of this premise I will need to send myself a warning. 

Has anyone every noticed how these positivists talk?

"A quick examination shows;" dot dot dot. ...

"A simple google search says ...."

"Of course it is that way, because of .:"

Its a bit foolish. We as we, tend to put the cart well fore the horse; so much so most days after. What would the Giants say? On whom we stand?

Obviously the horse of engineering should not come first in the search for knowledge.

I think they are having a bit of a piss about it. The orthodoxy has never led to the advance of any of their ideas. Newton, Galileo, any of those hallmarks. It has always, in anyway notable been against those ideas that stood for reason or coherency - and yet with it tongue in cheek. This provides even more in their existence against it proof of its immediate worth.

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

Truth stays the truth, but our abilities to test things improve dramatically over time.
And if we dont test things the whole time then we wont know what old beliefs where wrong.

People believed that disease comes from "Bad air" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
until someone actually showed that you could reduce infection by washing your hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Truth always stays truth, unless it was never the truth to start off with.
And that is why you cant find moderns scientific literature that proves the world flat, because any real testing shows it to be round.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 22, 2020, 06:36:01 AM

Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes?

I am afraid that if I continue to explore the joke potential of this premise I will need to send myself a warning. 

 

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

Truth stays the truth, but our abilities to test things improve dramatically over time.
And if we dont test things the whole time then we wont know what old beliefs where wrong.

People believed that disease comes from "Bad air" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
until someone actually showed that you could reduce infection by washing your hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Truth always stays truth, unless it was never the truth to start off with.
And that is why you cant find moderns scientific literature that proves the world flat, because any real testing shows it to be round.

Exactly. And science progresses by replication and consensus. There are usually a few people with fringe ideas, and they turn out to be right only about one time out of a million. And even that happens less and less as science has matured from its early days when Galileo observed the largest of the moons around Jupiter and the phases of Venus. The rotundity of the Earth is backed by mountains of unassailable evidence and all the flat-Earthers have are a few easily-explainable anomalies.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it starts with the conclusion and hunts for bits of evidence that seem consistent with its conclusion. This description fits FE to a T. Though it puzzles me that the proponents of FE also insist on a lot of points that have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Such as denying space flight or even space itself, as if space flight were impossible from a flat Earth; or insisting that moon light is dangerous, as if that were relevant to the shape of the Earth; or denying gravity, as if a flat Earth couldn't have gravity; or even claiming that rockets would not work in a vacuum.

FE is not so much about the shape of the Earth as it is about denying science itself, rejecting everything science has learned about the world, and setting itself up as an alternative "science." Make a YouTube video claiming that telephone poles are made of cheese and if you can get enough hits the flat-Earthers will welcome you as a fellow traveller.

The claim that moon light is dangerous is a perfect example of this. It's easy to find examples of people who had something bad happen to them after they were exposed to moon light, and then all you have to do is ignore all the people who spent time in moon light and nothing bad happened to them. Or better yet, since bad things happen all the time, you can always find something. So-and-so went out in moon light and two weeks later he stubbed his toe on a table leg. Must have been the moon light!

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

What would you say to this observation if you care to make it as it’s there for all to see if you care to look? The moon and Venus meet in the evening sky this week.The moon will be only 14% illuminated and so will appear as a slender crescent in the twilight sky. As the evening becomes fully dark, keep a lookout for the whole disc of the moon suddenly become visible! This is known as “earthshine” and is created by sunlight bouncing off Earth back up onto the moon’s dark side. If you care to think about it it’s simple physics/ geometry just like the normal phases of the moon. A truth observed and accepted by every astronomer. A truth that you alone are unwilling to accept.

Venus is now approaching its highest visible altitude in the evening sky for this apparition. It will remain there until the beginning of April. After that it will nose-dive towards the horizon, and by the end of May it will have disappeared into the glare. On 3 June, unseen from Earth, it will pass between our planet and the sun. It will then reappear low in the morning sky by the end of the month.

Has anyone every noticed how these positivists talk?

"A quick examination shows;" dot dot dot. ...

"A simple google search says ...."

"Of course it is that way, because of .:"

Its a bit foolish. We as we, tend to put the cart well fore the horse; so much so most days after. What would the Giants say? On whom we stand?

Obviously the horse of engineering should not come first in the search for knowledge.

I think they are having a bit of a piss about it. The orthodoxy has never led to the advance of any of their ideas. Newton, Galileo, any of those hallmarks. It has always, in anyway notable been against those ideas that stood for reason or coherency - and yet with it tongue in cheek. This provides even more in their existence against it proof of its immediate worth.

You might find that the amount of effort people put into refuting something depends greatly on the amount of effort you put into justifying your claims in the first place.

If you make some wild claim that pops into your head with absolutely nothing to back it up, then a quick google search for how things really work is all the response you deserve.  On the other hand, if you feel like presenting observations and analysis, to support your claim we can treat it a bit more seriously.  The clear pattern is you writing a couple of sentences of nonsense, then whinging that rebuttals don’t meet your oh so exacting standards.

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

What would you say to this observation if you care to make it as it’s there for all to see if you care to look? The moon and Venus meet in the evening sky this week.The moon will be only 14% illuminated and so will appear as a slender crescent in the twilight sky. As the evening becomes fully dark, keep a lookout for the whole disc of the moon suddenly become visible! This is known as “earthshine” and is created by sunlight bouncing off Earth back up onto the moon’s dark side. If you care to think about it it’s simple physics/ geometry just like the normal phases of the moon. A truth observed and accepted by every astronomer. A truth that you alone are unwilling to accept.

Venus is now approaching its highest visible altitude in the evening sky for this apparition. It will remain there until the beginning of April. After that it will nose-dive towards the horizon, and by the end of May it will have disappeared into the glare. On 3 June, unseen from Earth, it will pass between our planet and the sun. It will then reappear low in the morning sky by the end of the month.

So, on the one side we have every single astronomer in the world, both professional and amateur, with telescopes ranging from little things you can carry out into the back yard all the way up to humongous things many meters in diameter, plus radio telescopes ranging all the way up to 500 meters in diameter, and linked arrays, and gravity-wave detectors, and neutrino detectors; and on the other side of the issue we have Samuel Rowbotham, who made one measurement along a waterway and thought he detected no curvature.

I wonder which side carries more weight?

Rowbotham thought he had found an anomaly. Anomaly-hunting is exactly what pseudoscientists do. Typically, like him, they have no formal education in the field they are engaging in, and they present their anomalies without understanding the mechanisms behind what they are observing, or even how to use their equipment properly. They claim there is no value in education, and that all they need is their "common sense."

Call me a fool, but I'll believe a million astronomers on a question of astronomy before I believe one guy who thinks he's proved them all wrong.

We see the moon because it reflects the light of the sun, and to a much lesser degree, because it reflects the sunlight reflected off the Earth. There is nothing harmful in this light. The sun shines because of thermonuclear reactions in its core, and its light is dangerous because it can cause sunburns and skin cancer, though proper precautions can mitigate the risk down to acceptable levels.

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 01:42:13 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.

Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 02:12:41 PM

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.

Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.

Funny that! And why are there all these "plethora of flat earth world views"? Possibly because all are provably wrong.

But there is essentially one Heliocentric Solar System theory and it does explain what we observe. There is no need for "modern science" to explain it.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 02:12:41 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 01:42:13 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.

Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.

One would think you could come up with something a little more elaborate than a " celui qui le dit est celui qui l'est"

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 02:12:41 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 01:42:13 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.

Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.

If "globularism" is a religion, it is one that encompasses 99.999993% of the people in the world. There are a plethora of FE world views because no two flat-Earthers can agree with each other on just how the Earth is flat. Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.

Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.

Or even the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle 

Quote from: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 06:40:29 PM

Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.

Or even the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle 

Good one!