Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

[Zetetica]

I have never seen anyone that can do math past a high school level that accepts the Flat Earth. Perhaps you could link some of these papers for us.

I know a theoretical physicist (secondary in astrophysics) who accepts FE. Just because you have not met any (how many FEs do you know?) doesn't
mean they don't exist?

 

[Zetetica]

my assumptions as you call the are based on centuries of observations . You’re calling a refusal to believe nonsense “ psychology “ . Ok whatever flips your cookies ! You can see the galaxy in Orion in the winter in the northern hemisphere with the naked eye . You don’t even need a telescope . Any plastic object will form a sphere under the those conditions , a previous poster used soap bubbles , I would have said raindrops but most people don’t realize that they’re spherical not tear shaped

They aren't your observations and how do you even know if the bulk of them conclude a spherical Earth?

 

[Brightmoon]

I know a theoretical physicist (secondary in astrophysics) who accepts FE. Just because you have not met any (how many FEs do you know?) doesn't
mean they don't exist?

I know of a lot of geologists who accept young earth and biologists who accept separate creation. They’re still all wrong !

 

[Zetetica]

I know of a lot of geologists who accept young earth and biologists who accept separate creation. They’re still all wrong !

Maybe, maybe not. You aren't the authority on truth and neither is a consensus of scientists.

 

[Kaon]

my assumptions as you call the are based on centuries of observations . You’re calling a refusal to believe nonsense “ psychology “ . Ok what ever flips your cookies !

I am calling "psychology" the compulsion to demean, insult and deride persons who would have the audacity to question the status quo.

You are still arguing faith in what you have been told - it is just supposed to be impressive because it is something believed for centuries. It is still a matter of faith; no layperson has ever been above low orbit, beyond our planetary neighbourhood, or beyond our solar system in order to ascertain what they have been told. They have to have faith in what they hear.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes from the word of God Academia.

If you believe people won't exploit your faith, and your trust in "authority" and "learned" persons then you are already being had. Humans are capable of lying very deeply, and if you are Christian then you know that the entity ruling this world is not one that is just. Do you think it will tell the truth, and lead the world into intellectual and spiritual knowledge. Or, will this entity lead men into a deception that seems correct?

You are participating in the psychology of incredulity taught as normal behavior - especially when confronting one that would dare challenge the status quo. It is subconscious. Everyone plays a role in this thing called life, and the role of the "now incredulous (but soon to find out very wrong) follower of the status quo" has to be filled - just like the role of the "crazy person who denies all evidence" has to be filled. You can qualify and quantify them even on these forums. Your alignment is irrelevant; the fact you make a choice is the point. Just be happy with your choice.

 

[Freodin]

You have never seen a galaxy, for example, yet you trust those people who say what their instruments see is, in fact, a galaxy. It must be hard keeping up with the faith needed to be acceptable in the world, and the faith needed to trust in the Most High God.

You have never seem the edge between the manifold and the hemispherical magnetic dome... and there aren't even any people who say that their instruments have seen it.

It isn't also mentioned in the Bible.

So why do you believe it?

You must know that the spherical model works perfectly, from an observational, physical and mathematical point of view. So why reject it?

 

[Strathos]

Flat earth arguments are just so bad that it's impossible to take them seriously.

Here's a basic summation of my interactions with the modern flat earth movement:

FE: The earth is flat

Me: You're nuts

FE: Don't just dismiss it! You need to be open-minded and question what you have been taught! Just because you were raised to believe something doesn't mean it's true. You have to actually investigate and examine things and listen to the other side before coming to a conclusion!

Me: Okay, I'm game. What are your best arguments?

FE: 2500 year old conspiracy! 70,000+ km Antarctic coastline guarded by UN fleets that shoot anyone who approaches! Outer space doesn't exist and everything we know about it is made up, and the planets we can see through telescopes don't really exist! Gravity isn't real and only density matters! Nuclear tests were attempts to break the dome! Refraction doesn't exist! Ships don't really disappear over the horizon because some youtube videos say so! We had cutting edge CGI technology back in the 1950s! Every government on earth is in on it, along with every airline pilot, geodesist, astronomer, cartographer, and millions of other people! Every image is made with a fisheye lens! Flights from Sydney to Santiago don't exist and anyone who's ever been on one is a liar! There are things in the sky that look like space stations and satellites but they're fake... somehow! There's an invisible disc in the sky that causes eclipses, and it's only visible when the moon or sun moves in front of it! There's no such thing as-

Me: Okay, my original assessment stands. You're nuts.

 

[Brightmoon]

I am calling "psychology" the compulsion to demean, insult and deride persons who would have the audacity to question the status quo.

You are still arguing faith in what you have been told - it is just supposed to be impressive because it is something believed for centuries. It is still a matter of faith; no layperson has ever been above low orbit, beyond our planetary neighbourhood, or beyond our solar system in order to ascertain what they have been told. They have to have faith in what they hear.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes from the word of God Academia.

If you believe people won't exploit your faith, and your trust in "authority" and "learned" persons then you are already being had. Humans are capable of lying very deeply, and if you are Christian then you know that the entity ruling this world is not one that is just. Do you think it will tell the truth, and lead the world into intellectual and spiritual knowledge. Or, will this entity lead men into a deception that seems correct?

You are participating in the psychology of incredulity taught as normal behavior - especially when confronting one that would dare challenge the status quo. It is subconscious. Everyone plays a role in this thing called life, and the role of the "now incredulous (but soon to find out very wrong) follower of the status quo" has to be filled - just like the role of the "crazy person who denies all evidence" has to be filled. You can qualify and quantify them even on these forums. Your alignment is irrelevant; the fact you make a choice is the point. Just be happy with your choice.

. I keep thinking of that guy who kept telling everyone that the continents moved around . Wegener ! Everyone thought he was crazy but he had some irrefutable evidence - the fossil distribution of species between south America and Africa and the geological layering . Turns out he was right! Flerfers don’t actually have evidence they just misinterpret natural phenomena

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We don't even have to see it. Pythagoras figured it out a long time ago.

 

[Kaon]

You have never seem the edge between the manifold and the hemispherical magnetic dome... and there aren't even any people who say that their instruments have seen it.

So, it is a good thing 1) I am highly educated and credentialed in my field, 2) I trust myself, and 3) I can produce my own research. Otherwise, I would be dependent on what other people tell me.

It isn't also mentioned in the Bible.

A lot of things aren't in the bible; you are expected to use your God-given intellect to figure out the communication rhythm between you and your Father. Moreover, the Word of God Himself is not a canonical text; He is a living entity. You would need to know who He is to know why print and pages are nowhere near the enriching percentage of the actual Word of God Himself.

So why do you believe it?

You must know that the spherical model works perfectly, from an observational, physical and mathematical point of view. So why reject it?

The spherical model works because of the geometry and symmetry within its manifold family. That doesn't make it the unique solution to the geometry of this plane of existence. It just means it is a model that works. Again, this is based on what other people say. Even though I could derive the relationships myself, and I can see it work, I don't have to agree with the conclusion. Moreover, it doesn't make something correct just because it works (uniqueness).

The Most High God revealed plenty in books banned and discredited by other people. It is also not His fault that people extol dead men and books more than the Living God - even though people believe it works. Perception (psychology) plays a large part in determining truth.


Most all people are at a handicap because of their logic - easily exploitable, because logical thinking does not allow for exploits of illogical activity. The logician will always be surprised by it. That is why there is a aphorism about the Most High God calling those who are deemed foolish on earth wise, and those who are deemed wise on earth foolish. It isn't that the Most High God is extolling stupidity; He is making a commentary on human pride and ego.

 

[Kaon]

. I keep thinking of that guy who kept telling everyone that the continents moved around . Wegener ! Everyone thought he was crazy but he had some irrefutable evidence - the fossil distribution of species between south America and Africa and the geological layering . Turns out he was right! Flerfers don’t actually have evidence they just misinterpret natural phenomena

As I said, certain people must have this type of psychology. It isn't about the side you choose, but that you make a choice at all. You are free to misinterpret all of my points as often as you would like, as I am sure you know, as a sovereign human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this same thing happens to the moon and it’s safer to look at directly . Just take a dime outside at moonrise , compare the size at arms length and then compare that with the moon high in the sky a few hours later . The apparent change in size is due to an illusion . The dime or similarly sized coin helps you see that this is an illusion.

That's true, and the flaws that apply to the Sun in the Flat Earth model also apply to the Moon.

 

[Brightmoon]

Wiki how has several easy experiments that show that the earth isn’t flat

This is a screenshot not a link of part of one of them .

 

[Freodin]

He is making a commentary on human pride and ego.

Then it is a good thing that you are so highly educated and credentialated in your field, and can trust yourself.

But you haven't answered my question.
The globe model "works". It works on exactly the same mathematics as your personal domed variant.

So why chose one above the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know a theoretical physicist (secondary in astrophysics) who accepts FE. Just because you have not met any (how many FEs do you know?) doesn't
mean they don't exist?

I seriously doubt this. Why has he not published any of his work? In the sciences those that really believe something publish their work. I have seen people claim to be scientists many times on the internet but those claims are belied by their inability to support their claims or even do basic science. I have yet to see anyone that can demonstrate any mathematical ability that supports the Flat Earth.

 

[Kaon]

Then it is a good thing that you are so highly educated and credentialated in your field, and can trust yourself.

I didn't say I trust myself.

But you haven't answered my question.
The globe model "works". It works on exactly the same mathematics as your personal domed variant.

So why chose one above the other?

I answered your question. Just because it works doesn't make it the unique solution. Uniqueness is extremely important in determining an accurate solution or model to fundamental problems. That Gravity works doesn't make it the unique solution; hitting old TVs worked, but it wasn't the way to correct the problem (although, it was close considering the extra energy would be able to realign the current flow).

I choose my own theory because I have the background to vindicate it myself. I also have peers in my field with whom I can converse for feedback (at least on the correctness of the mathematics). I trust those people, and I trust my Father.

I am not admonishing people for trusting and following academia; I am admonishing the psychology that puts someone in the position (in their ego or superego) to assert what they deem as logical, acceptable and right is what everyone should believe. This is especially true when used with (subconscious) snipes at character and intellect. Science and math today are elementary, archaic images of Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian sciences and math. Our technology is mediocre compared to antiquity. Yet, we believe in our incomparable excellence. That is a psychological issue, not an intellectual one. I just want people to stop making it an intellectual issue; it is dishonest.

 

[tas8831]

And this would be totally different from the totally factual claims of flat earthers...

So brave a soldier...

Right. Sounds totally empirical and sufficient to trump centuries of real-life data.

"Perspective" does not produce a curvature...

 

[Kaon]

And this would be totally different from the totally factual claims of flat earthers...

So brave a soldier...

Right. Sounds totally empirical and sufficient to trump centuries of real-life data.

You can have a level curve surface, and maintain a "planar" topology.

In other words, this would be a local maximum (around a set of points) on the surface we call Terra Firma - it doesn't prove the earth is a ball.

This is why "flat" is a misnomer.

 

[Brightmoon]

Those towers had to be the same height otherwise the wires would get pulled too much .

 

[Freodin]

I didn't say I trust myself.

So, it is a good thing 1) I am highly educated and credentialed in my field, 2)I trust myself, and 3) I can produce my own research.

Hm... I must have misread that. I could swear you did say "I trust myself".

I answered your question. Just because it works doesn't make it the unique solution. Uniqueness is extremely important in determining an accurate solution or model to fundamental problems. That Gravity works doesn't make it the unique solution; hitting old TVs worked, but it wasn't the way to correct the problem (although, it was close considering the extra energy would be able to realign the current flow).

I would say that every specific solution for a problem is "unique". And I am really surprised that you as a mathematician would compare hitting a TV with mathematical systems.

Perhaps this is a communication problem. I have already said it: I never went that far into mathematics as you say you do, and it is quite difficult to express specific technical concepts in a foreign language when you are not intimately involved with the topic. But I do have a certain understanding of mathematics, and of English.

So when I say that something in mathematics "works", I do not mean that it might provide a solution to a problem, but that it fundamentally will.

An example from my days at university. In one lesson, we had to solve a certain problem. A fellow student presented his work in front of the course, went through all steps and came to his solution. The result was correct.
But the teacher asked him: you used this and that value in this step... how did you arrive at these values?
The students answer was surprising: "By experimentation. This is a set excercise for class, so it was reasonable to assume that this had to be a natural value not bigger than X. I tried a few values, and found that mine fit."

This "worked"... in this case. I would even say it is a "unique" solution. But of course, it wouldn't "work" generally.
But, because we were all there to learn, the teacher guided us to a method that "worked" in a general case.

The spherical model is such a "general solution". It works in all relevant cases, to explain the observed data.
If we assume that your specific model does the same... there is still the question why you chose yours over the standard model.

I choose my own theory because I have the background to vindicate it myself.

In what way? What advantages does your model have over the standard model.
This doesn't in any way touch the question whether your model is correct or consistent. But in order to prefer it to another, it has to have an advantage.

What is that?