Flat Earth

[Subduction Zone]

It's because I'm more experienced (spiritually)

I know but faith is a spiritual faculty

If your claims are true why can't you support any of them properly? I could just as easily claim to have far more spiritual powers than you have. Unsupported claims are worthless in a discussion.

When I make a claim I try to make sure that I can support it properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you would have to be spiritual to know it is real


your perspective is that of an atheist

More nonsense. If what you claim is true you should be able to support it.

Try again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You mean this Newton?

Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258/

He's stating that gravity pertaining to celestial bodies in a vacuum is so absurd that no one competent would ever even consider it, and that he didn't want such a thought ever associated with him. Funny how I knew this and you didn't.

Uh, no. He says it's absurd to suppose it could act, "without the mediation of something else", but he didn't know what that was. Einstein later provided a model for that mediator with dynamic spacetime, but a gravitational field does just as well.

The rest of that passage reads, "Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."

Odd that that last bit is so often left out. Oh, wait... quote mining.

So, yes, that Newton. You know, the one who produced the Law of Universal Gravitation that gave the mathematical formula for calculating the force of gravity:

F = G(m₁m₂/r²)

You know, the law that explained the falling of apples to the ground in his back garden, and the orbits of the planets and their moons?

 

[JohnEmmett]

More nonsense. If what you claim is true you should be able to support it.

you are responsible for your acceptance …

or rejection

of the truth and reality as it is

 

[JohnEmmett]

I could just as easily claim to have far more spiritual powers than you have.

you can so far only claim to be skeptical

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are responsible for your acceptance

or rejection of the truth and reality as it is

I never reject the truth. Be careful. Making false claims about others is a violation of site rules.

If your claims are true why can't you properly support them? So far you have done posted nothing that could not be refuted with a simply "Nuh uh."

Evidence would be nice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you can so far only claim to be skeptical

Since I am honest that is what I can do. Skepticism is proper when someone is making claims that they cannot support.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Evidence would be nice.

you have free will


evidence will not (come and) force you to accept

 

[Subduction Zone]

you have free will


evidence will not (come and) force you to accept

Do we now? We may. Of course that means that if there is a God that he cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. And even if free will exists it is not evidence for a God. It would also exist without one. Free will may be an illusion.

 

[OnePath]

Your link does not work. And yes, as great of a mind as he had Newton did not fully appreciate his work. Others went on after him and added to it. Your poor attempt does nothing to put any doubt on his work at all.

Hmm, interesting. Link works now. I'll add it again.

Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley (Normalized)

His work led him to believe gravity in a vacuum was absurd. So if others came along later and said it wasn't, the it wasn't Newton's work, regardless of whose name got slapped on it later.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Do we now? We may. Of course that means that if there is a God that he cannot be omniscient and omnipotent.

free will is the gift of god


evidence is withheld for this reason

 

[OnePath]

Uh, no. He says it's absurd to suppose it could act, "without the mediation of something else", but he didn't know what that was. Einstein later provided a model for that mediator with dynamic spacetime, but a gravitational field does just as well.

The rest of that passage reads, "Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."

Odd that that last bit is so often left out. Oh, wait... quote mining.

So, yes, that Newton. You know, the one who produced the Law of Universal Gravitation that gave the mathematical formula for calculating the force of gravity:

F = G(m₁m₂/r²)

You know, the law that explained the falling of apples to the ground in his back garden, and the orbits of the planets and their moons?

It says what it says. You're just trying to obfuscate.

 

[JohnEmmett]

His work led him to believe gravity in a vacuum was absurd.

to err is human

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, interesting. Link works now. I'll add it again.

Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley (Normalized)

His work led him to believe gravity in a vacuum was absurd. So if others came along later and said it wasn't, the it wasn't Newton's work, regardless of whose name got slapped on it later.

It does not really matter. You put too much importance on the man, rather than his works. He could not use his own work to plot the courses of planets. Others could. Using Newtonian physics we can make superb predictions (not perfect and we can get to that later). But using Newtonian physics astronomers can predict the date and exact time of the equinox. The orbital motions of all of the planets. When the next lunar eclipse will be. But far more impressive when the next solar eclipse will be and what will its path be on the Earth.

And yes, it is "Newton's work" because they use Newton's equations. Sorry, but that is how science works.

You cannot do any of that with your beliefs that you cannot support.

The following is a very important question that if you cannot answer you are admitting that your beliefs are irrational:

How could you properly test your ideas? What do you not know right now that could be predicted using a Flat Earth model? Or you could answer this question:

"What reasonable test could show your beliefs to be wrong?"

 

[JohnEmmett]

How could you properly test your ideas?

really a higher perspective is necessary


merely to transcend the wrong idea

 

[JohnEmmett]

 

[OnePath]

It does not really matter. You put too much importance on the man, rather than his works. He could not use his own work to plot the courses of planets. Others could. Using Newtonian physics we can make superb predictions (not perfect and we can get to that later). But using Newtonian physics astronomers can predict the date and exact time of the equinox. The orbital motions of all of the planets. When the next lunar eclipse will be. But far more impressive when the next solar eclipse will be and what will its path be on the Earth.

And yes, it is "Newton's work" because they use Newton's equations. Sorry, but that is how science works.

You cannot do any of that with your beliefs that you cannot support.

The following is a very important question that if you cannot answer you are admitting that your beliefs are irrational:

How could you properly test your ideas? What do you not know right now that could be predicted using a Flat Earth model? Or you could answer this question:

"What reasonable test could show your beliefs to be wrong?"

Actually, it was FB that brought Newton up and mentioned him multiple times in the short post I was responding to. It was his attempt to correct me through the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. I never mentioned him before that. Afterwords, what you all were responding to was a direct quote from the man himself. So, all this talk about how it somehow undermines him or his work is actually quite interesting since the claim at its essence is that Newton undermines Newton.

As for a reasonable test, measurable curvature. There isn't any. There was a time a few years back, when free speech was still a thing in some quarters, when I could have pointed people to more tests than I could count where independent testers were measuring curve through multiple methods, and never finding one, but a lot of that has been scrubbed, buried in algorithm changes, or had their channels simply deleted. There are some remaining sources around I could point people to if they wanted to put some effort into actually learning about flat earth, but my estimate is well over 90% has been memory-holed.

A few years back, PBS did some Steven Hawking produced show where they 'measured' the curve, but that was great comedy. Every measurement they said they did had logical and/or editing flaws. People still bought it though, because confirmation-bias is still alive and kicking it seems.

 

[JohnEmmett]

People still bought it though, …

are you aware ships sail around the world?

 

[JohnEmmett]

30 Days Timelapse at Sea

10 : 00

 

[OnePath]

are you aware ships sail around the world?

Yup. Did you know on both a globe and a flat earth, that course is still circular?