Debunking Flat Earth

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It's easy to say, but I'm not sure that always makes sense, e.g. if the rules are fundamental; is it possible to change the rules if the rules are what govern change?

Click to expand...

Why not? Like I said, we can imagine it to be like a gamer using a cheat code.

Sure - it is impossible in their 2D universe, they can never experience it - but even if we allow them to conceive it, it's still not a square, by definition.

Click to expand...

If they define triangle as being a three sided shape consisting of straight lines, that will be all they need living in a flat plane.

If I was then to take one of them and put them on a plane curved into a sphere and showed them a triangle on that, they will be confused, since every test they make shows that the shape has three sides and each side is straight, yet the interior angles are each 90 degrees.

They would say I have done something impossible, but I have not. Likewise, God could do things that we find impossible, but they are not possible for him, because he is not bound by the limitations of our universe, just as how I am not bound by the flat plane of the Flatlanders.

Kylie said:

Why not? Like I said, we can imagine it to be like a gamer using a cheat code.
...
If they define triangle as being a three sided shape consisting of straight lines, that will be all they need living in a flat plane.

If I was then to take one of them and put them on a plane curved into a sphere and showed them a triangle on that, they will be confused, since every test they make shows that the shape has three sides and each side is straight, yet the interior angles are each 90 degrees.

They would say I have done something impossible, but I have not. Likewise, God could do things that we find impossible, but they are not possible for him, because he is not bound by the limitations of our universe, just as how I am not bound by the flat plane of the Flatlanders.

Click to expand...

OK; I have a hunch that your 'cheat code' analogy has its limitations, but I'm starting a new philosophy course this week, so I don't presently have the time or motivation to dig into it. If something concrete comes to mind, I'll get back to you.

As for the triangle, yes, I agree that in suitable circumstances you can demonstrate that a particular definition can be satisfied in surprising ways, and there may be definitions that appear different and incompatible in one context, yet overlap in another (e.g. perhaps a circle and an ellipse); however, I remain to be convinced that a triangle, a circle, and a square can be geometrically similar in the same geometry, or that definitional opposites such as married man and bachelor can be logically the same, without changing the definitions themselves.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

OK; I have a hunch that your 'cheat code' analogy has its limitations, but I'm starting a new philosophy course this week, so I don't presently have the time or motivation to dig into it. If something concrete comes to mind, I'll get back to you.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it does have limitations, but it's merely to illustrate a concept, not provide a perfect mirror to the concept.

As for the triangle, yes, I agree that in suitable circumstances you can demonstrate that a particular definition can be satisfied in surprising ways, and there may be definitions that appear different and incompatible in one context, yet overlap in another (e.g. perhaps a circle and an ellipse); however, I remain to be convinced that a triangle, a circle, and a square can be geometrically similar in the same geometry, or that definitional opposites such as married man and bachelor can be logically the same, without changing the definitions themselves.

Click to expand...

And a Flatlander might say that he remains unconvinced that I could produce a triangle with three 90 degree corners, and yet I could do it.

Remember, you are looking at it from a limited point of view. When it comes to the 90 degree triangle that I show to the flatlanders, I am not limited by what limits them, so I can conceive of things that they can't ever imagine, things that all their experience says are impossible.

Likewise, if God is not bound by the laws of logic, then he can conceive of things that we could never imagine and that we believe to be impossible.

Kylie said:

... if God is not bound by the laws of logic, then he can conceive of things that we could never imagine and that we believe to be impossible.

Click to expand...

OK; but as I pointed out, it's easy to say (as is, "it's magic!"), but does it have useful meaning? I have my doubts.

Another structure to take the earth's curvature into account is the 31.348 miles long Channel Tunnel, linking England and France.

I watched Behind the Curve last night. It seems that the majority of FE “experts” these days are more concerned about cultivating their YouTube celebrity status than doing any actual valid testing to demonstrate that the Earth is flat. Apart from the gyroscope experiment of course, and that didn’t go too well.

Whyayeman said:

Another structure to take the earth's curvature into account is the 31.348 miles long Channel Tunnel, linking England and France.

Click to expand...

Can you show a document or documentary where they mention that the curve was taken into account?

Here is a quote from an engineer. Now, I know it is a quote from years ago.. but.. they built much of the infrastructure, that we maintain today, in these past times...

They did amazing things with technology less than what we have today... The curve did not suddenly come to exist in these last decades... Why did they not need to account for it then?

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

JacksBratt said:

Can you show a document or documentary where they mention that the curve was taken into account?

Here is a quote from an engineer. Now, I know it is a quote from years ago.. but.. they built much of the infrastructure, that we maintain today, in these past times...

They did amazing things with technology less than what we have today... The curve did not suddenly come to exist in these last decades... Why did they not need to account for it then?

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

Click to expand...

Who is this Mr Winckler (do you even know his first name?), and why is his opinion important?

So there were flatearthers in 1893. Big deal.

Here are a bunch of quotes showing that curvature was taken into account even before your Mr. Winckler:

Curvature and Refraction in Surveying and Leveling Through History. Old Books, etc.

46AND2 said:

Who is this Mr Winckler (do you even know his first name?), and why is his opinion important?

So there were flatearthers in 1893. Big deal.

Here are a bunch of quotes showing that curvature was taken into account even before your Mr. Winckler:

Curvature and Refraction in Surveying and Leveling Through History. Old Books, etc.

Click to expand...

Mr. Winkcler... was the "Fonz's" dad... LOL.

No, seriously, looks to me like he was an experienced engineer.. and.. he never accounted for the curve and states that it is only in textbooks.

Nice that you have also posted conflicting information from similar times.. Guess the FE is not "new".

Also, it is interesting that even back then, an experienced man of hands on type of work, and education... see's that text books are not always to be trusted.. in his opinion..

JacksBratt said:

Mr. Winkcler... was the "Fonz's" dad... LOL.

No, seriously, looks to me like he was an experienced engineer.. and.. he never accounted for the curve and states that it is only in textbooks.

Nice that you have also posted conflicting information from similar times.. Guess the FE is not "new".

Also, it is interesting that even back then, an experienced man of hands on type of work, and education... see's that text books are not always to be trusted.. in his opinion..

Click to expand...

Why does he look to you like an experienced engineer? Do you know ANYTHING about him apart from this quote you like?

46AND2 said:

Why does he look to you like an experienced engineer? Do you know ANYTHING about him apart from this quote you like?

Click to expand...

Read what he said. “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw"

JacksBratt said:

Read what he said. “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw"

Click to expand...

That’s just what he said about himself. Anyone can claim to be anything, whether he is or not is another matter. You don’t know anything about him, you just know what he said about himself.

Regardless, I did a little digging on him, and while I’m not in a position to really share all of what I found, I will say that he seems to be something of a mystery. It’s npt entirely clear if he did exist, if he did he was a member of the flat earth society, and the magazine your quoting from is a flat earth publication (it’s acually called ‘Earth Not A Globe Review’)

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

OK; but as I pointed out, it's easy to say (as is, "it's magic!"), but does it have useful meaning? I have my doubts.

Click to expand...

Well, I would think it would have useful meaning to religionists who want a way to explain why there are so many inconsistencies with God...

JacksBratt said:

Read what he said. “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw"

Click to expand...

So just that quote, then.

Kylie said:

Well, I would think it would have useful meaning to religionists who want a way to explain why there are so many inconsistencies with God...

Click to expand...

Oh, of course! It occurred to me that if you were suggesting that theistic religion represents a (rather distorted) simulation scenario, then what you were saying is all feasible... not sure why I didn't see that earlier!

46AND2 said:

So just that quote, then.

Click to expand...

How many times must a man say something..................before it is truth?

JacksBratt said:

How many times must a man say something..................before it is truth?

Click to expand...

Never.

That's not how truth works.

"Shemjaza is right. I know because I am a wise man."
--John Realperson

JacksBratt said:

How many times must a man say something..................before it is truth?

Click to expand...

Besides what Shemjaza said, I find this question quite ironic considering....

I gave you multiple statements where people said something which directly contradicted what Mr. Winckler said, which leaves the rather odd impression that the more often something is said, the less likely you are to believe its veracity.

46AND2 said:

Besides what Shemjaza said, I find this question quite ironic considering....

I gave you multiple statements where people said something which directly contradicted what Mr. Winckler said, which leaves the rather odd impression that the more often something is said, the less likely you are to believe its veracity.

Click to expand...

I could have posted several as well... Truth is not a democracy....


When I do post several... then people just attack the source.... then the person... well, you did that already...

I find that nobody here has, or is going to, change their view..

So far... all I get is "is too,....is not" arguments.

JacksBratt said:

I could have posted several as well... Truth is not a democracy....

Click to expand...

I know truth is not a democracy. You're the one who asked how many times one must say something before it is truth. My point of bringing up that I posted multiple quotes was not to show that I was correct, it was to show the irony in your question.

When I do post several... then people just attack the source.... then the person... well, you did that already...

Click to expand...

Haven't you learned by now that posting anecdotal quotes is a bad debate tactic? They carry little weight, are easily counter-quoted, and are often quotemined to begin with.

I find that nobody here has, or is going to, change their view..

Click to expand...

You changed your view about Starman's Tesla tires.

So far... all I get is "is too,....is not" arguments.

Click to expand...

You certainly do when you use anecdotal quotes, particularly obscure ones, as debate tools.