Flat Earth

[JohnEmmett]

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

this is just insanity

 

[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.

Let me address this a little bit more. These predictions were in place long before Newton, as evidenced through such mechanisms as the Antikythera device. It's not Newton or anything that came from his work that did that. The only thing that arose from that are formulas to show how such things might work if the earth were a ball. It isn't.

And NASA doesn't get their eclipse predictions from Newton's work at all. They get it all from a man named Fred Espenak. Check it out here if you don't believe me, they mention it at the bottom: NASA Eclipse Web Site

The math used is really nothing more than the observation and timing of the movements of the objects overhead to see when they will cross the same space in the sky. Globe-earthers assume this is orbital in nature, but but it doesn't have to be that in any way. It's just an unnecessary assumption added that provides nothing to the math, pre or post-Newton.

 

[OnePath]

this is just insanity

How so?

 

[JohnEmmett]

How so?

I think you delight in this crazy belief


though it does not matter…

 

[OnePath]

I think you delight in this crazy belief


though it does not matter…

What crazy belief?

 

[JohnEmmett]

What crazy belief?

flat earth…

 

[OnePath]

flat earth…

There's nothing crazy about that, except to those who don't understand it. Learn about its merits and you'll see it's not 'crazy', just different. And then at some point, you'll find it's also accurate as well.

 

[JohnEmmett]

There's nothing crazy … you'll find it's also accurate as well.

Buddhism got this wrong as well


oh well, they knew other dimensions better

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me address this a little bit more. These predictions were in place long before Newton, as evidenced through such mechanisms as the Antikythera device. It's not Newton or anything that came from his work that did that. The only thing that arose from that are formulas to show how such things might work if the earth were a ball. It isn't.

And NASA doesn't get their eclipse predictions from Newton's work at all. They get it all from a man named Fred Espenak. Check it out here if you don't believe me, they mention it at the bottom: NASA Eclipse Web Site

The math used is really nothing more than the observation and timing of the movements of the objects overhead to see when they will cross the same space in the sky. Globe-earthers assume this is orbital in nature, but but it doesn't have to be that in any way. It's just an unnecessary assumption added that provides nothing to the math, pre or post-Newton.

Sorry, but you are conflating lunar and solar eclipses. Lunar eclipses are relatively easy to calculate. Solar eclipses, not so much. Please find a reliable source that says that they could predict the position and timing of solar eclipses in the past.

Newton was good enough to get us to the Moon and back. Like it or now we went there. But we can prove the globe Earth is all sorts of ways. You do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs. You already admitted this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's nothing crazy about that, except to those who don't understand it. Learn about its merits and you'll see it's not 'crazy', just different. And then at some point, you'll find it's also accurate as well.

Please present some scientific evidence for it. To do that you need a testable model first. Ad hoc explanations are failed explanations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

The difference is that on the Earth one can sail in a straight line and still go around the Earth. One cannot do that on the Flat Earth. Do you know what a Great Circle is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You do not appear to understand what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is. Appealing to Newton would not be such a fallacy because he got his science right.

But thank you for admitting that your beliefs are irrational and that you have no evidence for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

really a higher perspective is necessary


merely to transcend the wrong idea

It is not unreasonable to demand that you support your claims if you want others to take you seriously. When one cannot do so properly they are telling us that their is little difference between their beliefs and a belief in flying unicorns. If belief in a God is so important why does that God play hide and seek so well?

 

[JohnEmmett]

If belief in a God is so important why does that God play hide and seek so well?

that's just how it is

 

[JohnEmmett]

It is not unreasonable to demand that you support your claims if you want others to take you seriously.

Matthew 7:7

 

[OnePath]

The difference is that on the Earth one can sail in a straight line and still go around the Earth. One cannot do that on the Flat Earth. Do you know what a Great Circle is?

Please present some scientific evidence for it. To do that you need a testable model first. Ad hoc explanations are failed explanations.

If you want to learn about flat earth, I will provide sources of information, but I'm not concerned with convincing you myself. If you really want to know, you'd be willing to put in the work like the rest of us. If not, then you are just looking for an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you want to learn about flat earth, I will provide sources of information, but I'm not concerned with convincing you myself. If you really want to know, you'd be willing to put in the work like the rest of us. If not, then you are just looking for an argument.

I already know how it fails. You yourself admitted that you have no scientific evidence for it so why do you believe that nonsense?

Instead of handwaving can you tell us why you believe an idea that was refuted over 2,000 years ago?

 

[OnePath]

You do not appear to understand what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is. Appealing to Newton would not be such a fallacy because he got his science right.

Well, no. He didn't. But you are free to keep thinking anything you want.

But thank you for admitting that your beliefs are irrational and that you have no evidence for them.

That didn't happen either, but again, your faith is in science, so you do you. At least if you had a deep faith in science, you would examine the issues presented against it. But I suppose you are one of the lukewarm atheists, just believing what you are told to believe.

 

[OnePath]

I already know how it fails. You yourself admitted that you have no scientific evidence for it so why do you believe that nonsense?

Instead of handwaving can you tell us why you believe an idea that was refuted over 2,000 years ago?

I never said any of that. I'm not sure we can have these conversations if you aren't even going to attempt to understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, no. He didn't. But you are free to keep thinking anything you want.

Okay, he got it right enough to get us to the Moon and back. What do you think that Newton got wrong? How are you going to prove it?

That didn't happen either, but again, your faith is in science, so you do you. At least if you had a deep faith in science, you would examine the issues presented against it. But I suppose you are one of the lukewarm atheists, just believing what you are told to believe.

Actually it did happen. You merely do not know enough to realize that you did it. And again, you have faith, that is your flaw. I do not have faith. I reason rationally instead.

You admitted that you had no evidence for your beliefs when you said that no test could refute them. Like I said, you do not even understand the nature of evidence. Evidence requires one to be honest with oneself. That is why I asked you that question. If you could be honest with yourself you could think up a test that could refute your beliefs.