The earth is round

[Eliza Thomason]

Round, right? A sphere. Or, is it flat. Hmm...

[ashlesha]

hm?

[Eliza Thomason]

hm?

Browsing a theory that SHOULD have NOTHING to it. But, it seems to have something... Study of flight plans is very interesting. Its intriguing. Some brief interesting discussion re: the antarctic "outer-ring" can be found here: http://www.abodia.com/fe/articles/fl...antarticia.htm

flat_earth.png

[ashlesha]

I admire your chutzpa for both considering this and opening yourself up to criticism by sharing it.

[Capitalist Pig]

Some parts are flatter than others.

[Beautiful sky]

Sphere called Oblate Spheroid.

[Pa3s]

No, it's a potato.

[Eliza Thomason]

Then there is this https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.c...-map-debunked/

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk (I usually don't like watchign videos but this guys voice is relaxing.)

[TheJackal]

Then there is this https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.c...-map-debunked/

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk (I usually don't like watchign videos but this guys voice is relaxing.)

I am the author of the wordpress article.. I watched the video you posted and it's largely science illiterate junk unfortunately. Firstly, he showed several cut scene pictures supposedly showing flat horizons even though more than one of them actually did not to which included the city sky line below the horizon.. However, and with that said, the author of the video does not understand how camera lenses work when it comes to this issue, or what is barrel distortion. Hence some of those photos were taken with the horizon line above the central focal point of a camera lens.., and this will in effect straighten out a curved surface to appear straight rather than curved. Furthermore, the further from the focal point you get, the more barrel distortion you will have. He also does not provide the unedited pictures in his slide show.. You can see this barrel distortion effect in the section of his video as he points to the horizon and pans his camera.. Next he discusses how the Earth is supposed to drop 8 inches per mile..., clever use of the term "Drop" vs "curve" relative to a starting point... The Earth curves per mile on average giving it's an oblate sphere, the guy can't even properly read the diagram he was using as he doesn't seem to understand that it's not a distance drop between point A and B as the distance must calculate the change of the Z axis angle. The Z-axis angle also determines the observers angle of observation. And therefore, and even though the initial mile, due to its near 90 degree Z angle, amounts to about an actual 8 inch drop, this will not hold true as the Z angle increases per distance mile from the starting point. So no, he is wrong, the Earth would not look like a Pyramid with the given calculations..., he clearly has no formal education in the mathematics involved. You might find this article interesting as well as I also touch on the subject of the sinking ship. :

https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.c...y-bendy-light/


Now on his argument about not being able to see satellites passing over is silly.., and yes you can because they reflect sunlight. No need for magical eyes..

[Pa3s]

OK, let's assume the Earth is flat. Then what about these questions:

- Why would that fact be hidden?
- Why would the UN have the "real" Earth in its logo?
- How is NASA able control this knowledge? Why would no other organization reveal the truth?
- How do you explain gravity? Does the Earth disc move "upward" and keep accelerating ad infinitum?
- How are seasons or even day and night possible?
- Where does the moon get its light from?
- Is the military really able to prevent anyone from seeing the "edge of Earth"?
- And if you did reach it? What would happen there? Would you fall off? What would pull you down once you jump over?

ect.

[Eliza Thomason]

OK, let's assume the Earth is flat.

Yes, its fun!

Then what about these questions:

- Why would that fact be hidden?
- Why would the UN have the "real" Earth in its logo?
- How is NASA able control this knowledge? Why would no other organization reveal the truth?
- How do you explain gravity? Does the Earth disc move "upward" and keep accelerating ad infinitum?
- How are seasons or even day and night possible?
- Where does the moon get its light from?
- Is the military really able to prevent anyone from seeing the "edge of Earth"?
- And if you did reach it? What would happen there? Would you fall off? What would pull you down once you jump over?

ect.

Exactly! Yes! What about all these things? I didn't think I would want to pursue all this, but then I started wondering about these kinds of things, and looked some up, and very reasonable people explained it in this sort of pretty plausible way, so, I would think, yes, but what about these other OBVIOUS problems.[And how bizarrely ridiculous such questions are!]. Then I would hear it/see the response to that (without awesome NASA art!) and I would think: hmm, interesting paradigm. Like, why the earth is not spinning. A guy with bad graphics explained this in a very understandable way. Etc. And its so interesting to entertain a completely different paradigm (which my Holographic-Panoramic type is fine with doing) and the reasons given are interesting. In fact, its sort of addictive. Because some of the ideas and the people telling them are starting to have a ring of truth to them/it, which is sort of far out. [Another glass of wine, please.] I don't have a lot of time to follow this stuff right now but when I have free time I'd like to watch some more videos. Like this one I watched last night. Bad sound on this interview but this guy comes across as 100% genuine and I do ave an IEE eye for that. Also, as an artist myself, I find him notably interesting and talented [as, allegedly, also did NASA].: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ But no time today for me...

[Eliza Thomason]

Welcome @TheJackal ! I see you came here because I linked your column. It is well written. I will respond to your post later. As I said to Pa3s, I have a lot going on at the moment, including guests at the house. But I will respond pretty soon to this post.

Meanwhile, you landed here at 16types Socionics. Welcome to our world of personality types. Socionics is pretty advanced stuff. What type are you? Betcha don't know. But you might know your MBTI (Myers-Briggs) type - do you? Probably you might. It is often the same 4-letter type in Socionics (but not always). A quick guess for you would be some sort of NT type; either INTj or INTp. Though, I guess the latter because I see a preponderance of Ni in you. (Sometimes my first guesses are right!)

[TheJackal]

Welcome @TheJackal ! I see you came here because I linked your column. It is well written. I will respond to your post later. As I said to Pa3s, I have a lot going on at the moment, including guests at the house. But I will respond pretty soon to this post.

Meanwhile, you landed here at 16types Socionics. Welcome to our world of personality types. Socionics is pretty advanced stuff. What type are you? Betcha don't know. But you might know your MBTI (Myers-Briggs) type - do you? Probably you might. It is often the same 4-letter type in Socionics (but not always). A quick guess for you would be some sort of NT type; either INTj or INTp. Though, I guess the latter because I see a preponderance of Ni in you. (Sometimes my first guesses are right!)

I am more of a mutt, a mix breed of every type and sub-type.. Seriously, I looked this up and the various questions they asked to make a type determination, and many of them are extremely obtuse questions that seem quite dubious and often in the format of false dichotomy with a gradation scale to which is often depicted between two unrelated extremes.. It's almost like getting into Scientology, astrology, or other mystical social placement systems. But yes, I sometimes click on the referral links from my blog to see what is going on... Most of the time I remain as the ghost who just observes .., but sometimes I itch to respond like I did after watching that video... That video was horrendously pleading to ignorance from a position of ignorance . I have had a lot of debate on the FlatEarthSociety's forum, and 99.9 percent of it is incoherent nonsense. The most coherent thing they ever had talked about is in regards to how gravity works..., but then utterly fail at the same time to understand how taking non-local measurements of gravity across the globe would instantly invalidate their entire argument.. Hence, gravity is not uniform on Planet Earth, and for their argument to hold any water, it would have to be completely uniform at g = 9.81 m/s2 ...if it weren't their version of Earth would rip itself apart as their system of gravity is based on acceleration and velocity in one direction (up).. Thus if there were any deviation in any part of the globe to which either was accelerating faster, or has a difference in velocity, the planet would effectively rip apart. There is a reason why these people don't have scientifically peer reviewed journals in any accredited academic arena.. They reside on confirmation bias..., and it gets hilariously bad when you start discussing with them on their idea that the sun is a spot light 3,000 miles above the Earth.. Just ask them how it keeps it's shape as it dips below the horizon, and you will get all sorts of hilarious magical bending light arguments... You won't ever see them post any actual conducted science, or any navigable coordinate system that wouldn't rely on adjusting for the curvature of the Earth. You won't see them provide you a time and distance calculation based on their flat Earth model vs RE along equal parallels.. They heavily depend on appealing to ignorance and conspiracy theory., and the famous "lurk more" when they have no refutation.. Whenever I see such videos as the one you cited, I think of the Ancient Aliens documentary ..., horribly intellectually dishonest nonsense that has since been debunked thousands of times over. :/

[Eliza Thomason]

More response later!

[Pa3s]

@Eliza Thomason

All these flat Earth arguments (and most conspiracy theories for that matter) are based on shallow thinking. These people may sound convincing at first, because they structure and present their cases in a seemingly logical way. Well, they do believe in their own theories, so they got to be coherent, right? But they only tell you one side of the issue, leaving everything out which contradict their position on the issue.

I just watched a video with "80 reasons why the Earth is flat" (which was actually more like a repetition of a handful of arguments over and over again) one "reason" was especially weak. It was pretty much like this:

"If the Earth was spherical, pilots would constantly have to adjust their planes to fly down. If they didn't, the planes would fly a straight line, leave Earth and fly into space."

A person who believes in this argument apparently lacks the most basic understanding of flying. And I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, nobody can know everything. But those who know nothing must believe everything.

On another note, people whose personal beliefs counter some scientific positions (for example on the origin of Earth and mankind) are certainly more inclined to give "alternative approaches" a chance. No offense, but it's possible that you actually want the Earth to be flat. Maybe just to see science getting knocked down a peg. And I'm not just saying that because you're Christian and I'm not. This applies to everyone to some extent. I'd feel very satisfied myself if a new scientific discovery proved that quantum mechanics actually aren't random after all.

[marooned]

A person who believes in this argument apparently lacks the most basic understanding of flying. And I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, nobody can know everything. But those who know nothing must believe everything.

i think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to make an argument (to inform others of the "truth") about the earth being flat unless one really knows wtf they're talking about. but i guess some people don't realize when they don't understand something.

[TheJackal]

"actually aren't random after all."

In actuality they aren't physically.. Random deals with the limitations of our ability to predict ..., and quantum mechanical systems are largely chaotic systems .., systems based on system feedback where the feedback is the control. These sort of systems, like the weather, are notoriously difficult to predict even if you knew all the variables in the system.. I would recommend watching the serious "The Secret Life of Chaos" . All systems even if they appear disordered, have explicit order.., there really is no such thing as true random, there is however our limitations to our predictive power. So we call quantum systems random because we can't fully predict them with a high degree of certainty..

A case example is you on a roof with a ball..., you can sort of predict where the ball might land, but since the environment is chaotic in nature, it might land somewhere other than where you predicted. Hence a bird might hit the ball, or a rock on the ground might change its trajectory.. These elements represent feedback, and as variables to which can make the system inherently unpredictable.. This is what random is even through the system itself wasn't actually random in itself. It just deals with our ability to accurately predict what is going to happen, or what a result and outcome will be.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason

All these flat Earth arguments (and most conspiracy theories for that matter) are based on shallow thinking. These people may sound convincing at first, because they structure and present their cases in a seemingly logical way. Well, they do believe in their own theories, so they got to be coherent, right? But they only tell you one side of the issue, leaving everything out which contradict their position on the issue.

I just watched a video with "80 reasons why the Earth is flat" (which was actually more like a repetition of a handful of arguments over and over again) one "reason" was especially weak. It was pretty much like this:



A person who believes in this argument apparently lacks the most basic understanding of flying. And I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, nobody can know everything. But those who know nothing must believe everything.

On another note, people whose personal beliefs counter some scientific positions (for example on the origin of Earth and mankind) are certainly more inclined to give "alternative approaches" a chance. No offense, but it's possible that you actually want the Earth to be flat. Maybe just to see science getting knocked down a peg. And I'm not just saying that because you're Christian and I'm not. This applies to everyone to some extent. I'd feel very satisfied myself if a new scientific discovery proved that quantum mechanics actually aren't random after all.

Good thoughts and I'll type a response later (we have guests). Yup, you would think I would want this to be true, as I am like-minded with many Bible-believers who might likely want to believe this, bad enough to allow it to color their thinking. But, honestly, I do not want this. I resist. And last night I said to Dh, "Don't you dare tell anyone I am thinking about this theory!" Its NOT something I want to identify with. But there is this pesky part of me that wants to believe what is true, and I mean, whatever it be, convenient or not. In matters of faith, morals, health, science, what have you. I want to get to the core of what is true, and I truly believe that if you seek truth, you find it. That has proven true in my life, over and over again, so I do believe that. However, I hope very much this interesting-to-gape-at strange theory is not true. It would be one of those things you could aptly call "an inconvenient truth", if it were true. Very inconvenient.

[Pa3s]

i think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to make an argument (to inform others of the "truth") about the earth being flat unless one really knows wtf they're talking about. but i guess some people don't realize when they don't understand something.

I was actually referring to the people who believe those weak arguments and not the ones spreading them. But what you said is also true.

In actuality they aren't physically.. Random deals with the limitations of our ability to predict ..., and quantum mechanical systems are largely chaotic systems .., systems based on system feedback where the feedback is the control. These sort of systems, like the weather, are notoriously difficult to predict even if you knew all the variables in the system.. I would recommend watching the serious "The Secret Life of Chaos" . All systems even if they appear disordered, have explicit order.., there really is no such thing as true random, there is however our limitations to our predictive power. So we call quantum systems random because we can't fully predict them with a high degree of certainty..

Yeah, I agree. That's pretty much what I'd reply in such an argument. The fact that we're not able to see the underlying order does not mean it isn't there. But still, as long as quantum processes are only hypothetically deterministic, one can argue that they are indeed indeterministic. It all depends on whether you believe in randomness or not. Some do, and a few of them even seem to build their concept of free will upon quantum physics, as some sort of last resort.

[TheJackal]

I was actually referring to the people who believe those weak arguments and not the ones spreading them. But what you said is also true.



Yeah, I agree. That's pretty much what I'd reply in such an argument. The fact that we're not able to see the underlying order does not mean it isn't there. But still, as long as quantum processes are only hypothetically deterministic, one can argue that they are indeed indeterministic. It all depends on whether you believe in randomness or not. Some do, and a few of them even seem to build their concept of free will upon quantum physics, as some sort of last resort.

It is all actually deterministic.. Pretty much everything is governed on the principles that are fundamental to systems with feedback, and that includes cognitive systems in which are also subject to positive, negative, and neutral feedback and feedback loops. Hence interestingly enough , cognition is governed by the same principles and rules as is quantum systems and even evolution etc.. Furthermore, free will is essentially a logical fallacy since you would have to be omnipotent to actually get anywhere near what could be regarded as free will..., and even then one can always be subject to constraints and limitations... Free will is the ability to do and make choices without any constraints or limitation of any kind or sort.. If you are subject to even just one constraint, this being no matter what it is, you don't actually have "free will". Thus for example, everything is subject to require existence and its fundamental rules in order to exist..., and this in itself guarantees there is likely no such thing as "Free will" as one cannot exist without existence no matter how much they try to will it so or be. Saying we have free will is like telling a caged bird that they have freedom of movement when in fact they do not. It is more correct to say they have a limited range of movement as it would be to say we have a limited range in which we can choose to do, choose not to do, or willingly do and not do.. I currently don't have the free will not to die of old age.. If I had free will, I could not ever be made to go against my will either while having the ability to will others to do my bidding without the possibility of them going against my will to have them do my bidding.. I would not be subjugated in any way if I had free will.. Thus as you can see, it is all deterministic, but the silver lining is that it is not all "pre-deterministic".. Indeterministic is a stage between cause and effect in a chaotic system... Hence like that ball you are about to toss off the roof, its place of rest is yet to be determined, and therefore is in a indetermined stage... However, there is always an end outcome to which makes it deterministic as that ball will come to rest when and where it does. All the feedback throughout the entire process determines that final outcome... This is no different in how your perception of the world depends on the feedback you get from it and how your brain processes that information... It's so extreme that it can and does shape who you become, what you may or may not do, think, or choose.. Just the act of choice is weighing information between two or more options, and that information acts as the feedback and will apply pressure to whether you choose A over B, or C over A and B ect... Things like emotional investment etc all play their roles in the chaos of what is our lives and who we are .. .. The rabbit hole goes pretty deep.

[Pa3s]

*post*

Yes, I have thought about these things before. We're on the same page on this issue.

What I was trying to say was that there are people who don't believe this to be true. People who don't see a logical fallacy in free will and think that true randomness exists. And while those people can't deny the deterministic nature of almost all natural processes, they cling to things like quantum physics, because the deterministic explanation of these processes has not yet been found.

While I'm convinced of a deterministic universe, critics could still argue that it's not determined because quantum physics can't be explained in a deterministic way (yet). This situation is very similar to a religious argument. I believe that determinism holds true even if I can't know it and if scientists suddenly found out the way quantum physics are deterministic as well, it would back my belief and probably make me feel good about it. That's the reason why I thought of this example. But I'll to stop going off topic now.


PS: I don't want to tell you how to structure your texts, but a paragraph here and there would make them a little easier on the eyes.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Throughout history, humanity has wasted time on many trivial topics. Matters of both a practical nature, such as "How would Jerusalem be best managed to suit the interests of everybody?" and "Is it type related?", as well as deep philosophical questions such as "Is there a Prime Mover?" and "What is the greatest video game of all-time?"

This thread seems to manage to occupy a different niche altogether.

Dr. John Watson on Sherlock Holmes:

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.
“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

[ragnar]

Sphere called Oblate Spheroid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

[Adam Strange]

The ancient Greeks knew the earth's shape was very close to spherical, and they knew this for reasons which you, too, can directly verify. They observed the Earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, and regardless of the direction the moon was in the sky, the Earth's shadow always appeared round. As any geometer can tell you, the only shape whose shadow appears round from every direction is a sphere.

The great Astronomer Fritz Zwicky used this knowledge when he said his fellow astronomers were "spherical bastards", because "they are bastards no matter which way I look at them."

[Eliza Thomason]

You all are really missing something if you don't tune in to some of what this theory says. Really, the thing with the flights is really interesting.

Here is an emergency landing for a birthing mom - and the site of the emergency landing ONLY makes sense on the flat earth. 47 second video! L@@K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUCBcUJVnQs

[Eliza Thomason]

Jackal, I am going to respond to your posts but I have to tell you I am not in any position to debate or defend the theory. I am only just exploring this theory because I am not afraid of keeping an open mind when I explore things. I find I can learn a lot that way. And its pretty fascinating!

...the author of the video does not understand how ...or what is barrel distortion. ...horizon line above the central focal point of a camera lens.... the further from the focal point you get, the more barrel distortion....the Earth is supposed to drop 8 inches per mile..the Earth curves per mile ...it's not a distance drop ... calculate the change of the Z axis angle. ..the observers angle of observation. ...the initial mile, due to its near 90 degree Z angle, amounts to about an actual 8 inch drop,...the Z angle increases per distance mile ... he clearly has no formal education in the mathematics involved.

Ah, I see. I actually also do not have advanced formal education in mathematics. I guess you could call me illiterate in higher mathematics. So this is not a good argument for me. You could be making this all up, for all I know.

I do believe the horizon does not bend, and that there is no proof earth is curved. This I do understand from my recent research. The curved earth is a theory, a workable theory, yes, but the consensus I see is that there is no proof of the curved earth.

This sounds crazy if you say there are pictures of earth proving it. There are no pictures of the earth. They are ALL created images. (This statement woudl have been surprising to me a week ago, but research it. They are created images.)

. You might find this article interesting as well as I also touch on the subject of the sinking ship. :
https://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.c...y-bendy-light//

Naw, I am also illiterate in physics. Can't talk to you about this.

I liked the following simple explanation for the alleged "disappearing ships". And you don't need a higher math or higher science degree to understand it. Which puts everyone on a level playing field for discussing. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/t...st+the+horizon [Because when you turn a discussion with non math/science college major persons into a detailed discussion involving advanced math and physics principles, it doesn't make for much of a discussion]

I am more of a mutt, a mix breed of every type and sub-type.. Seriously, I looked this up and the various questions they asked to make a type determination, and many of them are extremely obtuse questions that seem quite dubious and often in the format of false dichotomy with a gradation scale to which is often depicted between two unrelated extremes..

Nope. You are a type. There are no "mixed breeds" in this.

... It's almost like getting into Scientology, astrology, or other mystical social placement systems.

No, Scientology is pure science fiction.

(Omigoodness, it just occurred to me the effect would have on Mormonism. How can everybody become God on their own planet if there are no planets, solar system and endless universe full of spinning galaxies?)

Socionics isn't mystical. Its very logical and much researched. A workable theory, actually. Just like your science.

..... I have had a lot of debate on the FlatEarthSociety's forum, and 99.9 percent of it is incoherent nonsense.
Or maybe they have a different Cognitive style. Maybe see what yours is. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

The most coherent thing they ever had talked about is in regards to how gravity works..., but then utterly fail at the same time to understand how taking non-local measurements of gravity across the globe would instantly invalidate their entire argument.. Hence, gravity is not uniform on Planet Earth, and for their argument to hold any water, it would have to be completely uniform at g = 9.81 m/s2 ...if it weren't their version of Earth would rip itself apart as their system of gravity is based on acceleration and velocity in one direction (up).. Thus if there were any deviation in any part of the globe to which either was accelerating faster, or has a difference in velocity, the planet would effectively rip apart. There is a reason why these people don't have scientifically peer reviewed journals in any accredited academic arena..

I gather the reason for the lack of meeting of minds is something explained by the talented super-realist artist NASA hired for contract work, and he describes the NASA physicists, after telling him about the flat earth reality (he thought they were joking of course) and how the one got chalk out and and explained that physics was really all about heat and light, how everything we understand about movement of earth and energy or objects, in this hidden-from-the-public science, how everything is caused by temperature. As opposed to this notion of energy like Einstein's energy, mass and space.

Now I cannot argue EITHER of these concepts with you. But I write the above to explain to you that it looks like you were arguing with these people about conventional known physics, vs. this completely different paradigm. Basically you were arguing oranges and they were arguing apples. And you got nowhere. Of course.

.... They reside on confirmation bias..., and it gets hilariously bad when you start discussing with them on their idea that the sun is a spot light 3,000 miles above the Earth..

Yes. That's like Maine to California. And the sun: about 32 miles wide.

That's so upclose and personal, it warms my heart.

Its almost like Someone made the earth just for us!

Just ask them how it keeps it's shape as it dips below the horizon, and you will get all sorts of hilarious magical bending light arguments... You won't ever see them post any actual conducted science, or any navigable coordinate system that wouldn't rely on adjusting for the curvature of the Earth. You won't see them provide you a time and distance calculation based on their flat Earth model vs RE along equal parallels..

Actually I found the horizon light thing really understandable. If you are looking for them to match you in diagrams, visuals, and volume of published research, you are certainly going to outshine them in that department. But you won't learn anything. And you won't have much of a conversation.

.They heavily depend on appealing to ignorance and conspiracy theory.

I know the party line for conspiracy theory, of course - its scoff and mock. But I wonder, do those who spit this out with a mocking tone believe there is no such thing as any conspiracy? I know there are stupid conspiracy theories out there. I can't get on board with the space alien abductions, for example. But, I just can't buy the idea that powers-that-be are honest and upfront with their power, and that governing agencies just have my best interests in mind, and they are there to look out for me and serve me, that's their life mission, etc. People lie, steal, cheat, and pursue power and personal advantage in my little world, and I think things don't improve vastly the higher up and more powerful you go. I just don''t.

., and the famous "lurk more" when they have no refutation..

Lurking on the Flat Earth topic has been awfully fun. If you are trying to win an argument I guess its not, though.

...Whenever I see such videos as the one you cited, I think of the Ancient Aliens documentary ..., horribly intellectually dishonest nonsense that has since been debunked thousands of times over. :/

Nope. Just as you lump Socionics typing in with Scientology and Astrology, all conspiracy theories are not the same boat with Ancient Alien Documentaries.

I see you know a lot, but you could expand your mind a bit, too.

@Eliza Thomason

All these flat Earth arguments (and most conspiracy theories for that matter) are based on shallow thinking. These people may sound convincing at first, because they structure and present their cases in a seemingly logical way. Well, they do believe in their own theories, so they got to be coherent, right? But they only tell you one side of the issue, leaving everything out which contradict their position on the issue.

Hmm, I think you have a narrow train of thought here.

....A person who believes in this argument apparently lacks the most basic understanding of flying. And I'm not saying that it's the people's fault, nobody can know everything. But those who know nothing must believe everything.

Sounds a bit smug. And I don't buy the idea that if you see some truth in some of these claims, you are someone who "knows nothing" and "believes everything".

I found a couple of videos by airline pilots to be illuminating. And they knew quite a bit about flying.

[TheJackal]

Jackal, I am going to respond to your posts but I have to tell you I am not in any position to debate or defend the theory. I am only just exploring this theory because I am not afraid of keeping an open mind when I explore things. I find I can learn a lot that way. And its pretty fascinating!

From my time on their home site, I can tell you're likely a Flat Earther attempting to play Devil's Advocate..

Ah, I see. I actually also do not have advanced formal education in mathematics.

No offense intended here..., and with that said, this isn't advanced mathematics, it's basic geometry and trig. This is something most students should know and understand by 7th grade O.o
However, one can always educate themselves as the oracle (google) can provide easy to follow lessons in such basic mathematics..

You could be making this all up, for all I know.

You don't even need to understand the math to see that each line of measurement gets longer when measuring the curvature:

Diagram.png

As you can see, the dark red lines are the Z axis and they get longer as the angle of Z increases from the 90 degree right angle.. The guy in the video doesn't seem to comprehend that an increase in angle means a lager degree of drop from the initial 90 degree position on a sphere.. He thinks all the drops are 90 degrees and thus would magically make a pyramid.. Hence he can't even properly read a diagram.. I seriously shouldn't even have to do this, people ought to have at least a 7th grade education in mathematics.

I do believe the horizon does not bend,

It doesn't, It's the Earth that curves to which shapes the horizon line.. And you are incorrect that there is no proof that the Earth curves.., you're attempting the game of appealing to ignorance here.. You were already given direct proof... If you need to see it yourself, buy a camera and balloon, or get a drone and measure the horizon along the center focal point of your lens.. Again this would take nothing more than basic mathematics.., especially when you can get the barrel distortion information for your camera directly from the manufacturer. You can also use the drone to measure approaching objects over the horizon via approach vector.. You also know that the Earth is curved because what is below the horizon is well below your eye level just on angle alone.. The fact that the horizon is just at or below eye level for the average 6ft male tells you it is curved... Hence to have a sinking ship effect over a flat plane would require introducing the observer in a parabolic bowl, and that would mean the horizon would be well above eye level.. There would further be warping effects as you either increased or decreased the distance between you and the object just over the horizon.. Hence the further away you get, the ground would appear to rise like a growing mound .. See the following diagram:

horizon.jpg
Hence, we don't look up to see the horizon ..

. The curved earth is a theory, a workable theory,

You refuted your own argument. A working curved Earth theory cannot work at all if the planet were flat.. O.o For example, you cannot use GPS coordinates to navigate a flat Earth without having to account for the curvature in your calculations on an equal area map.. Such accounting in itself would invalidate it entirely. The fact I can use a coordinate system for a globe / sphere to successfully navigate, this to which I have, automatically in itself invalidates your argument.. Yeah, you could of course appeal to ignorance of not having done so yourself to try and invalidate any and all evidence ..., but that would be intellectual laziness and ineptitude on your part. Either that, or your intellectual credibility would be as crank as the guy in the video who quote mines science papers he has no comprehension of.

yes, but the consensus I see is that there is no proof of the curved earth.

If you can't accept a consensus, then you are responsible to do the science... You don't have to accept any consensus, but appeals to ignorance is not an argument against any scientific consensus. That is not how science works, and if you want to be taken seriously academically, you will be expected to do the science..

This sounds crazy if you say there are pictures of earth proving it. There are no pictures of the earth. They are ALL created images. (This statement woudl have been surprising to me a week ago, but research it. They are created images.)

I am sorry, I am all out of time for crank conspiracy theories and assertions..

Naw, I am also illiterate in physics. Can't talk to you about this.

I liked the following simple explanation for the alleged "disappearing ships". And you don't need a higher math or higher science degree to understand it. Which puts everyone on a level playing field for discussing. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/t...st+the+horizon [Because when you turn a discussion with non math/science college major persons into a detailed discussion involving advanced math and physics principles, it doesn't make for much of a discussion]

Incoherent nonsense.. Ships that are over the physical horizon will not be restored by using a telescope.. You can use a telescope however to see if the ship has gone over the physical horizon, but even the most powerful telescope you can buy will not save you from the ship going below the physical horizon.. Just measuring the angle in itself would be hilarious, and that would be long before reaching any supposed vanishing point.. Hence a sinking ship through telescope, as an example, isn't going to get much smaller as it would be required if it where going off into an infinite vanishing point.. Though one of the most amusing things about your link is that they had use a curved surface for their diagram.. Apparently they don't know the difference between the x and z axis.

Nope. You are a type. There are no "mixed breeds" in this.

Prove it

No, Scientology is pure science fiction.

I would agree, but at the same time, you're speaking from a position of Irony

I gather the reason for the lack of meeting of minds is something explained by the talented super-realist artist NASA hired for contract work, and he describes the NASA physicists, after telling him about the flat earth reality (he thought they were joking of course) and how the one got chalk out and and explained that physics was really all about heat and light, how everything we understand about movement of earth and energy or objects, in this hidden-from-the-public science, how everything is caused by temperature. As opposed to this notion of energy like Einstein's energy, mass and space.

Feel free to demonstrate a working computer without energy.. Temperature is a fundamental property of energy..., you do realize this right? Rub your hands together really hard and fast.., the friction causes your hands to heat up.. Temperature didn't cause the friction, it's a product there of.. Your conspiracy theories are nonsensical, and at most amusing.. Btw the video is crank.., and the man is a well known crank that doesn't just involve the Flat Earth movement.. He uses this medium to make money as most cranks do such as Creationists like Ken Ham etc..

http://www.timetounite.com/matthew-b...lf-as-a-shill/

Worse still, there isn't a single flat Earther that has ever provided any actual academic science, evidence, or material.. Their entire base is founded on conspiracy theory, appeals to ignorance, quote mining science, using intellectually dishonest fallacies to cast what is known as "shadows of doubt"... They are also often linked to the Creationist movement in regards to the Bible. They don't understand the principles of science, and nor do they conduct any.. A good number of them don't even seem to have much more than a 3rd grade education in mathematics.. If you can't even tell the difference between the X and Z axis, I dare say I don't think I am going to take you anymore seriously than a 3 year old trying to discuss quantum physics.. It comes out cute, but is all gibberish.. I mean it was a decent appeal to vanishing point, but I don't think they actually understand how that actually works lol. No kids, the ship would shrink into a little point / dot along the horizon line proportional to its distance from the observer.. It would not actually appear to sink, it would appear to shrink into a small dot, and this is not the effect you see on a sinking ship.. Yeah, get your telescope out and prepare to giggle..

Now I cannot argue EITHER of these concepts with you. But I write the above to explain to you that it looks like you were arguing with these people about conventional known physics, vs. this completely different paradigm. Basically you were arguing oranges and they were arguing apples. And you got nowhere. Of course.

Incorrect, I was fundamental part in why they ditched their bendy light theory after having long debates with "Clock Tower".. They don't even use it anymore, and that is why they are now all reverting to that other pile of crap you linked to because it's easier to appeal to people's ignorance.. They also had since deleted their FAQ entry where they cited the circumference of their posted flat Earth map... Again this was largely due to a debate I had with them on their forums.. What do you think my article on the subject came from, the one you linked to on my blog? I can go back to their forum and cite you these discussions of course.. It's rather amusing to see them suddenly delete shit and change their bull shit. Hell, the discussion on flat glass was hilarious, but that's ok, they are cranks..

Yes. That's like Maine to California. And the sun: about 32 miles wide.

LOL.. Parallax is all I needed to debunk that bull shit.. Though I can tell when I am beginning to be trolled here..

Actually I found the horizon light thing really understandable. If you are looking for them to match you in diagrams, visuals, and volume of published research, you are certainly going to outshine them in that department. But you won't learn anything. And you won't have much of a conversation.

I have already debated them on this issue as well. You're right, I wouldn't learn anything from them because it's bullshit..

[TheJackal]

And btw on the angles regarding the sinking ship..., if you know the ship type and model, you can get it's height from the top of the mast to the bottom of the keel.. So when you look out at the horizon and you see but a small part of the mast, you can calculate the height of the ship in relation to the physical horizon line.. I guarantee you that the hull will not measure out to be at the horizon line..., it will fall below it.. You can even team up with a captain and his sailboat and he can give you distance from shore and you could literally, with the known height of the ship, calculate the curvature from the shore line with a really good telescope and your standard ruler.. Though this would best be done in very calm seas as it would be easier to account for the average wave heights according to the local forecasts for that day.

[Pa3s]

Yes. That's like Maine to California. And the sun: about 32 miles wide.

That's so upclose and personal, it warms my heart.

Its almost like Someone made the earth just for us!

That's a good example for what I was saying before. You don't openly admit supporting the flat Earth theory because of your open-minded self-image, but in reality, you totally want it to be true. A flat earth supports your personal beliefs and that's it. You're not seeking truth, you're seeking consistency.

Sounds a bit smug. And I don't buy the idea that if you see some truth in some of these claims, you are someone who "knows nothing" and "believes everything".

It may sound smug, but I don't except myself or anyone else from this effect. Your knowledge on a subject is critical if you want to evaluate a theory. And if you see truth in an argument which involves false logic and claims which are easily falsified, you apparently lack either the knowledge or the will to refute it. Again: everyone who knows at least the very basic mechanics of how planes fly can tell you that the argument I mentioned is totally ridiculous.

Science is not a religion. Every theory goes through a process of peer review and is closely scrutinized and often challenged. At the same time, scientists are far from being perfect and make mistakes. However, the "curved Earth theory" is an absolutely basic issue in which all serious scientists concur.

[Eliza Thomason]

From my time on their home site, I can tell you're likely a Flat Earther attempting to play Devil's Advocate..

Nope. The first day I ever HEARD of Flat Earth Theory was day I posted here. That was FOUR days ago. I must be an extremely intelligent person if I can make you think I have adopted this theory and have been involved in debating it for some time, and with you, even. Either that or you are not very good at discerning.

... this isn't advanced mathematics, it's basic geometry and trig... ... each line of measurement gets longer when ... the dark red lines are the Z axis and they get longer as the angle of Z increases from the 90 degree right angle.. ... the Earth that curves to which shapes the horizon line.. And you are incorrect here.. You were already given direct proof..
If you need to see it yourself, buy a camera and balloon, or getect that there is no proof that the Earth curves..,

Okay, you are trying to appeal to what I don't know. You are telling me to brush up on my geometry and trigonometry, and buy a camera and a WEATHER BALLOON. I don't think so.

How do you know I won't use the trigonometry and weather balloon and get the same results as the flat-earthers? Because they are using the SAME TOOLS AS YOU to say its proved flat, and not curved at all.

I suppose if I don't brush up on my trig and don't buy a weather balloon and perform your experiments, then that proves you are right. Right?

you're attempting the game of appealing to ignoran a drone

No

... and measure the horizon along the center focal point of your lens.. Again this would take nothing more than basic mathematics... you can get the barrel distortion information for your camera directly from the manufacturer. ... use the drone to measure approaching objects over the horizon via approach vector.. You also know that the Earth is curved because what is below the horizon is well below your eye level just on angle alone..

I know all about "below the horizon" because I have not been living in a bubble. However, for the sake of understanding this theory I am considering there IS NO SUCH THING and, instead, its vanishing perspective. Which does make sense to me, as an artist.

The fact that the horizon is just at or below eye level for the average 6ft male tells you it is curved...

You would think that's the final answer. But in this theory I am finding the idea rather appealing that things might be exactly what they seem to be.

Hence to have a sinking ship effect over a flat plane would require introducing the observer in a parabolic bowl, and that would mean the horizon would be well above eye level.. There would further be warping effects as you either increased or decreased the distance between you and the object just over the horizon.. Hence the further away you get, the ground would appear to rise like a growing mound .. See the following diagram:

Hence, we don't look up to see the horizon ..

You would do better arguing this on the flat earth forum.

You refuted your own argument. A working curved Earth theory cannot work at all if the planet were flat.. O.o

No, I mean a theory you can work with, and keep working on.

For example, you cannot use GPS coordinates to navigate a flat Earth without having to account for the curvature in your calculations on an equal area map.. Such accounting in itself would invalidate it entirely.

F.E.T. says we can do all those GPS things with the existing ground towers. And that sounds believable to me. I notice there has been a vast increase of ground towers commiserate with the increase in technology. You'd think it would be less, with all the thousands upon thousands of satellites.

I notice you ignore a lot of the pertinent points, like the flight routes. How do you explain that?

The fact I can use a coordinate system for a globe / sphere to successfully navigate, this to which I have, automatically in itself invalidates your argument..

There are maps, diagrams and videos of how that works on the flat earth map, too. Not hard to understand.

How do you explain the emergency landing of the plane from Japan to L.A. to ALASKA? I linked it above. That's a pretty unexplained stop when you consider the globe route. Pretty hard to find a plausible reason for that stop!

Yeah, you could of course appeal to ignorance of not having done so yourself to try and invalidate any and all evidence ..., but that would be intellectual laziness and ineptitude on your part.

Well, I wouldn't want that!

Either that, or your intellectual credibility would be as crank as the guy in the video who quote mines science papers he has no comprehension of.

Interesting. I am actually not at all concerned about my intellectual credibility in this. However, I am not stupid. People like to be superior, as one can see. No one likes the black sheep. I told my husband he better dare not tell anyone I am interested in this!

If you can't accept a consensus, then you are responsible to do the science...

No, not buying that responsibility statement. I can observe the persons who believe this theory, and consider the credibility of their persons, their possible motives, and their integrity that comes through their person when they write or speak, use my inner b.s. meter, which is pretty good, actually, and trust my own brain as I listen to their theories and explanations and wonder if this sounds plausible to me or not. I do not think the only good brains are the ones that are formally trained in academia (or make a hobby of conventional academic learning). I think others of us have pretty good brains, too.

You don't have to accept any consensus, but appeals to ignorance is not an argument against any scientific consensus. That is not how science works, and if you want to be take seriously academically, you will be expected to do the science..

That's the thing, I am not bidding anyone to take me seriously. I am just finding the topic interesting, intriguing, and surprisingly PLAUSIBLE. That latter part would explain why in this age of academia, when we consider ourselves are so much smarter than the people of old, this crazy-sounding theory is getting growing attention.

I am sorry, I am all out of time for crank conspiracy theories and assertions..

Good for you!

Incoherent nonsense.. Ships that are over the physical horizon will not be restored by using a telescope.. You can use a telescope however to see if the ship has gone over the physical horizon, but even the most powerful telescope you can buy will not save you from the ship going below the physical horizon.. Just measuring the angle in itself would be hilarious, and that would be long before reaching any supposed vanishing point.. Hence a sinking ship through telescope, as an example, isn't going to get much smaller as it would be required if it where going off into an infinite vanishing point.. Though one of the most amusing things about your link is that they had use a curved surface for their diagram.. Apparently they don't know the difference between the x and z axis.

It makes sense to me. It was explained very clearly. I don't know why it does not to you.

Prove it!

You want me to prove Socionics to you? You are a very smug person. It seems to me you did not come to this site for any reason of integrity. You were arguing with flat earth people and you were getting nowhere because they are in a position to refute your particular narrow "scientific arguments" since they know their trig and geometry, and they use weather balloons and cameras. And they kept throwing thing at you that you could not refute. Since refute is what you want to do, you got bored, and came here, where you felt comfortable acting superior. Also they threw things at you that you prefer to ignore. Lots of things!

I think you are not a very smart person. In fact you are rather stupid, if you discount a thing without learning a thing about it. Stupid and arrogant, is how that reads.

Its up to you to disprove Socionics. And since you think its all stupid mythology and science fiction, then why do you come here? Not to argue with me because I am soon going to start ignoring you.

I would agree, but at the same time, you're speaking from a position of Irony

Nope.

Feel free to demonstrate a working computer without energy.. Temperature is a fundamental property of energy..., you do realize this right? Rub your hands together really hard and fast.., the friction causes your hands to heat up.. Temperature didn't cause the friction, it's a product there of.. Your conspiracy theories are nonsensical, and at most amusing.. Btw the video is crank.., and the man is a well known crank that doesn't just involve the Flat Earth movement.. He uses this medium to make money as most cranks do such as Creationists like Ken Ham etc..

I think FEers aren't denying that kind of energy that runs a computer. But really, you ought to sort this out with them.

And I know its conventional to mock creationists, but I am already not in that boat. Do you think you were just a mistake? It takes a LOT of faith to believe that. I don't proscribe to your bleak religion.

{re:link to matthew boylan "shill"

Well, I would rather read the conversation than try to discern it from this. Also I cannot judge a person as fast as you can, and also I am not willing to believe what someone tells me I am supposed to believe about a person. I take each person on their own merit, and I take stock in how they present themselves. For example, you present yourself a certain way here and I accept you on that.

But I will check out the "flat earth wall of shame" website some other time. Right now I just want to understand the theory I DON'T know, not prove the one I already know. And I am not in any big rush. It is not as important to defend conventional science to me as it is to you. That's your gig, not mine. I don't have all that much faith in it like you do. It TRULY is religion to so many, and it certainly appears to be your religion. Only if someone attacks your religion can you get so offended as you do. I mean, this is just a theory. And its conventional science that gives us the patented pharmaceutical approach to "health", and conventional science that brings us dinosaurs and prehistoric half man half animal....

Worse still, there isn't a single flat Earther that has ever provided any actual academic science, evidence, or material..

Um, no. You are so busy trying to defend your religion that you cannot read what they write. They present evidence. All your religion of science info is not irrefutable. You do have unanswerable questions in your religion, and FE does answer a lot of them!

Their entire base is founded on conspiracy theory, appeals to ignorance, quote mining science, using intellectually dishonest fallacies to cast what is known as "shadows of doubt"...

My, what a broad brush you stroke with!

They are also often linked to the Creationist movement in regards to the Bible.

Those people! They're not scientists!

They don't understand the principles of science, and nor do they conduct any..

Of course not!

A good number of them don't even seem to have much more than a 3rd grade education in mathematics..

They must be stupid!

If you can't even tell the difference between the X and Z axis, I dare say I don't think I am going to take you anymore seriously than a 3 year old trying to discuss quantum physics..

It comes out cute, but is all gibberish..

I mean it was a decent appeal to vanishing point, but I don't think they actually understand how that actually works lol. No kids,

silly kids!

the ship would shrink into a little point / dot along the horizon line proportional to its distance from the observer.. It would not actually appear to sink, it would appear to shrink into a small dot, and this is not the effect you see on a sinking ship.. Yeah, get your telescope out and prepare to giggle..

You certainly must be smarter than me, but the vanishing point perspective does make sense to me.

Did YOU take any art in college?

Incorrect, I was fundamental part in why they ditched their bendy light theory after having long debates with "Clock Tower".. They don't even use it anymore, and that is why they are now all reverting to that other pile of crap you linked to because it's easier to appeal to people's ignorance.. They also had since deleted their FAQ entry where they cited the circumference of their posted flat Earth map... Again this was largely due to a debate I had with them on their forums.. What do you think my article on the subject came from, the one you linked to on my blog? I can go back to their forum and cite you these discussions of course.. It's rather amusing to see them suddenly delete shit and change their bull shit. Hell, the discussion on flat glass was hilarious, but that's ok, they are cranks..

I have no idea about any of this. You'd best discuss it with them.

LOL.. Parallax is all I needed to debunk that bull shit.. Though I can tell when I am begging to be trolled here..

.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I awoke rejoicing, and began to reflect on the glorious career before me. I would go forth, methought, at once, and evangelize the whole of Flatland. Even to Women and Soldiers should the Gospel of Three Dimensions be proclaimed. I would begin with my Wife.

Just as I had decided on the plan of my operations, I heard the sound of many voices in the street commanding silence. Then followed a louder voice. It was a herald’s proclamation. Listening attentively, I recognized the words of the Resolution of the Council, enjoining the arrest, imprisonment, or execution of any one who should pervert the minds of the people by delusions, and by professing to have received revelations from another World.

I reflected. This danger was not to be trifled with. It would be better to avoid it by omitting all mention of my Revelation, and by proceeding on the path of Demonstration — which after all, seemed so simple and so conclusive that nothing would be lost by discarding the former means. “Upward, not Northward” — was the clue to the whole proof. It had seemed to me fairly clear before I fell asleep; and when I first awoke, fresh from my dream, it had appeared as patent as Arithmetic; but somehow it did not seem to me quite so obvious now. Though my Wife entered the room opportunely just at that moment, I decided, after we had exchanged a few words of commonplace conversation, not to begin with her.

My Pentagonal Sons were men of character and standing, and physicians of no mean reputation, but not great in mathematics, and, in that respect, unfit for my purpose. But it occurred to me that a young and docile Hexagon, with a mathematical turn, would be a most suitable pupil. Why therefore not make my first experiment with my little precocious Grandson, whose casual remarks on the meaning of 3^3 had met with the approval of the Sphere? Discussing the matter with him, a mere boy, I should be in perfect safety; for he would know nothing of the Proclamation of the Council; whereas I could not feel sure that my Sons — so greatly did their patriotism and reverence for the Circles predominate over mere blind affection — might not feel compelled to hand me over to the Prefect, if they found me seriously maintaining the seditious heresy of the Third Dimension.

But the first thing to be done was to satisfy in some way the curiosity of my Wife, who naturally wished to know something of the reasons for which the Circle had desired that mysterious interview, and of the means by which he had entered the house. Without entering into the details of the elaborate account I gave her, — an account, I fear, not quite so consistent with truth as my Readers in Spaceland might desire, — I must be content with saying that I succeeded at last in persuading her to return quietly to her household duties without eliciting from me any reference to the World of Three Dimensions. This done, I immediately sent for my Grandson; for, to confess the truth, I felt that all that I had seen and heard was in some strange way slipping away from me, like the image of a half-grasped, tantalizing dream, and I longed to essay my skill in making a first disciple.

When my Grandson entered the room I carefully secured the door. Then, sitting down by his side and taking our mathematical tablets, — or, as you would call them, Lines — I told him we would resume the lesson of yesterday. I taught him once more how a Point by motion in One Dimension produces a Line, and how a straight Line in Two Dimensions produces a Square. After this, forcing a laugh, I said, “And now, you scamp, you wanted to make me believe that a Square may in the same way by motion ‘Upward, not Northward’ produce another figure, a sort of extra Square in Three Dimensions. Say that again, you young rascal.”

At this moment we heard once more the herald’s “O yes! O yes!” outside in the street proclaiming the Resolution of the Council. Young though he was, my Grandson — who was unusually intelligent for his age, and bred up in perfect reverence for the authority of the Circles — took in the situation with an acuteness for which I was quite unprepared. He remained silent till the last words of the Proclamation had died away, and then, bursting into tears, “Dear Grandpapa,” he said, “that was only my fun, and of course I meant nothing at all by it; and we did not know anything then about the new Law; and I don’t think I said anything about the Third Dimension; and I am sure I did not say one word about ‘Upward, not Northward’, for that would be such nonsense, you know. How could a thing move Upward, and not Northward? Upward and not Northward! Even if I were a baby, I could not be so absurd as that. How silly it is! Ha! ha! ha!”

“Not at all silly,” said I, losing my temper; “here for example, I take this Square,” and, at the word, I grasped a moveable Square, which was lying at hand — “and I move it, you see, not Northward but — yes, I move it Upward — that is to say, not Northward, but I move it somewhere — not exactly like this, but somehow —” Here I brought my sentence to an inane conclusion, shaking the Square about in a purposeless manner, much to the amusement of my Grandson, who burst out laughing louder than ever, and declared that I was not teaching him, but joking with him; and so saying he unlocked the door and ran out of the room. Thus ended my first attempt to convert a pupil to the Gospel of Three Dimensions.

..

[TheJackal]

Either that or you are not very good at discerning.

Having spent more than a year on their forums, I will say that you act, argue, and sound exactly like they do.. Even your evasive debate tactics and inability to address any and all evidence presented ... Hence this discussion was aimed to go nowhere fast.

Okay, you are trying to appeal to what I don't know.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

You are telling me to brush up on my geometry and trigonometry, and buy a camera and a WEATHER BALLOON. I don't think so.

Might be a good idea if you want any relevancy in this discussion... Your intellectual laziness pretty much makes this discussion pointless. Especially when you are now delving into dishonest discourse by suggesting the following....:

How do you know I won't use the trigonometry and weather balloon and get the same results as the flat-earthers?

Because it would be impossible .... Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Because they are using the SAME TOOLS AS YOU to say its proved flat, and not curved at all.

No they aren't... They aren't using any tools whatsoever. They can't even get their basic math right...

I suppose if I don't brush up on my trig and don't buy a weather balloon and perform your experiments, then that proves you are right. Right?

No, it just proves you're intellectually lazy while yet still appealing to ignorance and excuses for your armchair skepticism.. You let me know when you have conducted the science and then get published in a accredited journal .. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you.. Seriously and sincerely!

I know all about "below the horizon" because I have not been living in a bubble. However, for the sake of understanding this theory I am considering there IS NO SUCH THING and, instead, its vanishing perspective. Which does make sense to me, as an artist.

As an artist you should have understood everything I had said concern the subject.. I get the feeling that your education on this subject is sub elementary if that is your response ..

You would think that's the final answer. But in this theory I am finding the idea rather appealing that things might be exactly what they seem to be.

Your feeling of what you like or not is irrelevant..

You would do better arguing this on the flat earth forum.

They ended up banning me because I was making them look bad on their forums... They ended up using appealing to a game of name calling and moral high ground arguments rather than addressing the facts and their nonsensical non-scientific hypothesis to which they provide no tangible evidence for.. You would do better arguing subjects you know more about however, and I say this because I can already tell you're over your head on this..

No, I mean a theory you can work with, and keep working on.

I am not sure if you understand the difference between theory in science and the common usage of the term.. Flat Earth "theory" is not a scientific theory..., it's an assertion with nothing to support it...

F.E.T. says we can do all those GPS things with the existing ground towers. And that sounds believable to me. I notice there has been a vast increase of ground towers commiserate with the increase in technology. You'd think it would be less, with all the thousands upon thousands of satellites.

Yeah, you could use ground towers in areas where there is land.. However the coordinate system would still be subject to that of a Globe.. You could use short distance coordinates and then try to suggest the Earth is flat right up till you link all the short distance segments together over a given distance.. The coordinates would remain subject to those of a globe.. You really shouldn't bring irrelevant things up, and you let me know when they can give you a navigable coordinate system...

I notice you ignore a lot of the pertinent points, like the flight routes. How do you explain that?

Jet streams, safety, waiting your turn to land, traffic avoidance, bad weather, and numerous of other reasons.. You can feel free to get specific about flight routes, but I am willing to bet you have no idea what you're talking about..

There are maps, diagrams and videos of how that works on the flat earth map, too. Not hard to understand.

No. no there isn't.. They constantly contradict each other and require ignorance of the real world and the laws of physics.. Half their crap wouldn't even work on a flat Earth. I could go knee deep into that as well..

How do you explain the emergency landing of the plane from Japan to L.A. to ALASKA? I linked it above. That's a pretty unexplained stop when you consider the globe route. Pretty hard to find a plausible reason for that stop!

The reason for the stop is irrelevant, they can do it.. And no, that claim is false that it would take less time to have stopped at LA.. But if you like, I will be more than happy to lay it out for you ..., and this has a lot to do with the shape of the Earth, and the Jet streams. It's actually a shorter flight than it would have been to go to LA.. A little hint.., the shortest distance is flying more north, or up over the Northern latitudes and the North Pole, rather than flying east/west over the Pacific. It would have taken them longer to get to LA, and the time and distance on the official departure time and arrival times is dead on for that flight.... So no, it would not have made sense to continue to fly to LA... If you need a simple experiment you can try on your own, take a globe and a string. Put the string where you want to start {Taiwan) and then put it straight across to LA and then to Alaska. Then try to reach the string over the arctic circle (north) and you'll note just how much shorter the route is. Find the shortest northern route and then go to flightradar.com and you can see that's just about exactly the way most of the planes are going over the northern routes and southern routes..

Well, I wouldn't want that!

Too bad, you're not in charge of a flight. And in life or death emergencies, I wouldn't want a pilot listening to a flat earther on where to go and land..

Interesting. I am actually not at all concerned about my intellectual credibility in this.

I can tell, and neither are flat earthers.

However, I am not stupid.

Stupid is the inability to apply knowledge, and nobody called you stupid or dumb..

People like to be superior, as one can see.

This is professional victimhood, and it's superiority is irrelevant ...

No one likes the black sheep. I told my husband he better dare not tell anyone I am interested in this!

Unfortunately these are the sort of arguments cranks make...., playing professional victim when one cannot substantiate their position or when they get called out on their bull shit.. I am not really impressed here.

No, not buying that responsibility statement. I can observe the persons who believe this theory, and consider the credibility of their persons, their possible motives, and their integrity that comes through their person when they write or speak, use my inner b.s. meter, which is pretty good, actually, and trust my own brain as I listen to their theories and explanations and wonder if this sounds plausible to me or not. I do not think the only good brains are the ones that are formally trained in academia (or make a hobby of conventional academic learning). I think others of us have pretty good brains, too.

This would be irrelevant.. A theory doesn't become invalid based on the quality of the person.. Newton could have murdered 30 people and it wouldn't invalidate his scientific work what-so-ever.. I am not sure you understand how science works here.. Furthermore, nobody said that the only good brains are those trained in academia..., but if those brains want any credibility in the academic arena, especially the scientific arena, they are going to be expected to do more than toss ideas, conspiracy theories, and assertions around.. It is not our job to disprove Flat Earth Theory, it's your job to substantiate it... It's been about 10 years since I have visited that Flat Earth forum., and they have nothing more than they had 10 years ago.. , and that was nothing..

surprisingly PLAUSIBLE.

No, no its not..Could it be in some other universe with different physics? Perhaps, but it's not here in concerns to Earth..

That latter part would explain why in this age of academia, when we consider ourselves are so much smarter than the people of old, this crazy-sounding theory is getting growing attention.

Not necessarily smarter, but more knowledgeable would be the correct answer due the accumulation of knowledge through discovery and the scientific methodology.. Also, I would refrain from the use of ad populum fallacies.


[/quote]
You want me to prove Socionics to you? You are a very smug person.[/quote]

Social dogma, and you call me smug?

It seems to me you did not come to this site for any reason of integrity.

Now you are asserting I came here to do the opposite of what I did here.. Seriously, you're in no position to be arguing my integrity here... However, I can offer you a mirror.

You were arguing with flat earth people and you were getting nowhere because they are in a position to refute your particular narrow "scientific arguments" since they know their trig and geometry,

Getting them to dump a theory and erase their FAQ is more than getting nowhere.. They are cranks,, and possibly POE.

and they use weather balloons and cameras.

No they don't... Not a single one of them has done any actual science... Feel free to cite me published peer review flat earth papers in a accredited journal ..

And they kept throwing thing at you that you could not refute.

Incorrect

Not to argue with me because I am soon going to start ignoring you.

This is probably your best choice at this point..

I think FEers aren't denying that kind of energy that runs a computer. But really, you ought to sort this out with them.

Seriously, make up your mind.. Either your claim that temperatures causes everything or it doesn't.. My god..., this is killing braincells.

And I know its conventional to mock creationists, but I am already not in that boat. Do you think you were just a mistake? It takes a LOT of faith to believe that. I don't proscribe to your bleak religion.

A good number of Creationists largely believe the flat Earth theory, I was stating this, but is see why not mock what is intellectually crank.. Btw, to be emergent cannot be a mistake..., nature in general (this apart from sentient beings of nature) isn't a conscious being and therefore doesn't make mistakes or have accidents, those are things tied to sentient beings that have the ability of intentions or intent.. Hence a rock doesn't accidentally or mistakenly roll down a hill and kill people.., it doesn't have any intentions.. Could someone's parents however not have intended to have them? Yes, and they can even regret having them as a mistake.. It doesn't take any faith on my part and I could sum this up just by referencing concept of Pantheism to where Existence itself is considered the origin, cause, essences, purpose, function, and totality of all that exists. In this argument, Existence is a self-generating system from itself for which all things come to be from..., this and that there is only Existence and what Existence is and is doing.. So if you could explain origins, causality, purpose, meaning, function, or how we got here without Existence, you can feel free to enlighten me. Hell, I can even ask you "What is God without Existence?"..., and instantly the delusion of grandeur becomes apparent.

Also I cannot judge a person as fast as you can,

Perhaps I have dealt with a fair deal more with people on these subjects.. I know the guy in the video is crank, but I am yet undecided about you.

Right now I just want to understand the theory I DON'T know

Well, if you want to do that, you will need much more knowledge on the subject matters they discuss concerning science and mathematics. At this point, I don't think you are well equipped (knowledge wise) to understand what it is they are discussing or why the stuff they are spewing is nonsensical. You seem hell bent on listening to them while not taking the time to learn or listen to anything I have thus far presented. Hence if you want to discuss with them on matters of optics and lenses, I would suggest getting a firm grasp on the subject before doing so.. They will target your ignorance of the subject, and it's very easy to manipulate the ignorant..

Um, no. You are so busy trying to defend your religion that you cannot read what they write.

I have no religion..

All your religion of science info is not irrefutable.

Science is not a religion, it's a methodology..

Those people! They're not scientists!



Of course not!



They must be stupid!

There is a difference between ignorant, stupid, and crank.. There is a mix among them..

Did YOU take any art in college?

Yes, I took multi-media and web design.. I had switched from 3D modeling and Animation in 3DS Max and Maya. . I also have a formal education in information science as well as have I delved into free courses from Harvard, Stanford and other colleges to which are offered by them online.. I could list them here if you like as there is a broad range to which include introductory courses to things like optics, chemistry ect.. However, my education doesn't make me better than anyone, it does however allow me to call bullshit when I see it..

I have no idea about any of this. You'd best discuss it with them.

I am sorry, I thought your post on the subject was to discuss this..

[job]

..

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

[TheJackal]

Ugh, sorry for the bad sentence structure and grammar .. It was late I am on my phone and I see no edit option at this time, I will look for it when I get home.

[Eliza Thomason]

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

Thank you, Job, you really get it. That's it exactly. I am truly enjoying the wonder of considering this theory.

[Pa3s]

Thank you, Job, you really get it. That's it exactly. I am truly enjoying the wonder of considering this theory.

Constructing alternative realities is an interesting exercise and I think we all enjoy a good story now and then.

But you also said this:

But there is this pesky part of me that wants to believe what is true, and I mean, whatever it be, convenient or not. In matters of faith, morals, health, science, what have you. I want to get to the core of what is true, and I truly believe that if you seek truth, you find it.

You can't have both. You are either seeking the truth OR you entertain yourself with interesting theories and fabricate your own truth, which has no basis in reality. Clearly, you are doing the latter while pretending to be objective about it.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Considering something as an explanation which is impossible is not "imaginative", it is just stupid. This is true in matters of faith as it is with anything else.

I find it difficult to believe that the Flat Earthers could exist with any degree of seriousness, but then, if we were in a half-rational world, the organised religions would not exist either. People who attach themselves to such things are clearly extremely close-minded to subvert everything to intangibles and "wishful thinking", rather than the universe of plausible explanations.

[Contra]

nah guys, the earth is flat. Don't listen to jackal.

[ragnar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUCBcUJVnQs

The plane trajectory dispayed when the narrator says "this is how it would look on a globe" is incorrect in the sense that it is not the expected one; long distance flights usually approximate the shortest line along the surface of the globe, i.e. a great circle. So most direct flights from Taiwan to Los Angeles would look like this when projected onto a flat map:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldcloc...?p1=241&p2=137

[TheJackal]

You fail to grasp something, that is the wonder that some of mankind has. It goes back to living in caves, painting on walls and gazing at the stars.

It doesn't matter if the earth is a cube, it's about imagination and wondering.

This is an innate ability of mankind and it is a part of our nature, you don't grasp this, you speak of dry (although you don't pull them together well), facts. You are as a computer, no imagination just a program running, this is why people disagree with you, it's nothing to do with the shape of the earth, it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

There is nothing wrong with "wonder" or the "Imagination"... However, there is a difference between wonder, imagination, and believing it is all true.. If you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, you have a problem.. There is further reason why we address such ignorance, and that is because ignorance like this can get people killed. Take a flight emergency..., the pilot become a Flat Earther and decides he doesn't need to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport according to the reality that Earth isn't flat... He decides to take a different route and then gets everyone killed.. Or how about a guide in the wilderness of the badlands decides to tell people that their cell's GPS or GPS systems are all wrong and then gets his entire group killed... Yeah, there comes a point where this sort of ignorance becomes potentially dangerous.. I love fantasy, imaginative things, and so forth, but I don't go about mistaking them for reality and then try to make some sort of cult in regards to it. If we haven't noticed, ignorance in this day and age has become a breed commodity, and is proving to be getting pretty dangerous... When people like Sarah Palin nearly get elected into office, there is a problem... I don't address such ignorance to simply insult it, I address it for sake of humanity..


Other than this, I say have fun with wondering and imagining things..., but at the same time you need to keep a foot hold in reality...

it's to do with them having a grasp of the concept of infinity, which you do not.

I grasp it pretty well actually(not entirely as no one does entirely)... Where you even got the idea that I don't is rather a mystery... If you are referring to the vanishing point, I didn't address an infinite vanishing point.., I address the correction of the perspective regarding the sinking ship.. Like I said, it would not appear to sink below the physical horizon, it would shrink to a dot and then eventually seem to vanish as it moves beyond your visual range. Let me help you with this:

Sinking Ship.jpg

Hence, if you looked through your telescope and saw the left example, you do not have a flat Earth.. Period!.. If you looked through your telescope and saw the ship get smaller proportionally to the increase of distance between you and it, this to where it shrinks to a point at the vanishing point on the physical horizon, then you could argue the possibility of a flat Earth.. We don't observe the example on the right:

hqdefault.jpg

hull-down-03.png


Anyone can take a telescope and actually see that "no, the hull will not magically be restored".. The only time that effect has been known to happen is on a less than clear day where a ship hasn't yet reached over the physical horizon.. In those cases you could take a telescope to see what your naked eye could not see.. Sorry, but the Flat Earth theory, and as interesting as it is, is bunk.. It is fantasy.