News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Flat Earth Belief Growing Worldwide

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, November 17, 2019, 03:37:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Icarus

Chill out for crise sake people.  Billy Rubin is being a comedian, that's all.  Me too when I said that ships were sailing off the edge. A little humor please.

There are just about none of us who actually entertain the notion of flat earth.  It is all a big ass joke on the knotheads who believe in conspiracy theories.

xSilverPhinx

Hmm...I have yet to read this entire thread but all I will say for now is this:

Flat-Earth 'theories' are not valid models of observed reality, in totality. A scientific theory explains all observations as best it can, not simply one or two aspects while leaving out the rest. I don't think the reductionist approach applies here. You can't think of one alternative explanation for one phenomenon and say it proves the "theory" while leaving out all the other phenomenon better explained by the round Earth theory. The whole thing comes as a package and is better seen as a package.

And I won't even go into actual observations of the 3D round Earth, such as photographic evidence. That's just batshit crazy conspiracy theory right there.

Evolutionary Theory for instance. You could go bananas and say, "but god could have intentionally made every species' DNA look like they were connected in the great web of life, doesn't necessarily mean evolution actually happened!" How do we know evolution happens? Besides all the evidence dating back billions of years we see it happen. We've documented it. In addition, we have loads of geological evidence which corroborates biological findings. We have evidence from many different fields that give weight to an elegant explanation for how species and populations of organisms evolve over time.

Strip all that away and say that it was the devil planting bones in different geological strata just to mislead us, and I'll call you crazy. Sure it's internally consistent but it's just ridiculously absurd.

The same can be said for flat Earth explanations. Each one can seem internally consistent but that doesn't make it valid when contextualised in the big picture.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Davin

There's an alright documentary on NetFlix called "Behind the Curve" that follows some flat earthers as they try to prove that the earth is flat.

In one part, this guy places two boards with holes in them at exactly the same height. Then he uses the supposed incorrect spherical earth mathematics and puts them far enough apart that if a light was shone through one hole, a camera would not pick it up in the other. But since the earth is flat, he should totally be able to see the light.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


Then another part a guy buys a very expensive gyro, that he took in a plane. If the earth was flat, the gyro would not turn at all because the plane would not have to turn to match the curvature of the Earth.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


I think that some of these people are too far into it to be able to back out. It's better to be embarrassing I guess, than to feel embarrassed.

Edit: There were videos, but it looks like they've all been taken down... seems like the Flat Earthers don't want the truth of the spherical Earth to get out!
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tank

Billy/Nick we are all on the same side here. There is no need whatsoever for any friction nor getting the hump over the smallest of perceived slights. Neither of you are 'flat earthers' so let's have a little better behaviour please.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

billy rubin

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2019, 09:28:46 PM
Billy Rubin, you seem to know a lot about Flat Earth, which is beginning to make me think that you are one.  Prove that you are not.

Michael Palin visited both the North and South Poles - he did not report seeing a wall of ice.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_to_Pole_with_Michael_Palin

lol

palin is a genius.



no, ecurb. im not a flat earther. my checkered background includes a graduate degree in geology and a stint as a petroleum geologist, which pretty well prevents me from taking the flat earthers seriously. nonetheless, working through the interesting history of the question and reading the current apologies provides an excellent introduction to just what exactly science is, and what it is not. not everybody is clear on that.

and having said that, i did work with a mormon geophysicist who had no dificulty reconciling young earth theory with paleozoic stratigraphy. but he drank coors light on ice.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

billy rubin

Quote from: jumbojak on November 20, 2019, 09:52:34 PM
Why is it that new members, and even some older members, have to put up with this?


Quote from: Icarus on November 21, 2019, 01:55:36 AM
Chill out for crise sake people.  Billy Rubin is being a comedian, that's all.

nah. i think maybe i was being a bit too cheeky. but thank you both for the support.

bluenose, i apologiz for presuming on your good nature in this matter. i'll try to be more circumspect in the future.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

billy rubin

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 21, 2019, 03:19:39 AM
Hmm...I have yet to read this entire thread but all I will say for now is this:

Flat-Earth 'theories' are not valid models of observed reality, in totality. A scientific theory explains all observations as best it can, not simply one or two aspects while leaving out the rest. I don't think the reductionist approach applies here. You can't think of one alternative explanation for one phenomenon and say it proves the "theory" while leaving out all the other phenomenon better explained by the round Earth theory. The whole thing comes as a package and is better seen as a package.

And I won't even go into actual observations of the 3D round Earth, such as photographic evidence. That's just batshit crazy conspiracy theory right there.

Evolutionary Theory for instance. You could go bananas and say, "but god could have intentionally made every species' DNA look like they were connected in the great web of life, doesn't necessarily mean evolution actually happened!" How do we know evolution happens? Besides all the evidence dating back billions of years we see it happen. We've documented it. In addition, we have loads of geological evidence which corroborates biological findings. We have evidence from many different fields that give weight to an elegant explanation for how species and populations of organisms evolve over time.

Strip all that away and say that it was the devil planting bones in different geological strata just to mislead us, and I'll call you crazy. Sure it's internally consistent but it's just ridiculously absurd.

The same can be said for flat Earth explanations. Each one can seem internally consistent but that doesn't make it valid when contextualised in the big picture.

silver, you've touched on the great achilles heel of the flat earth discussion. i suggest you visit the current platform and look it over:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=5le9136c0bo2var1p5o4rcaki0;wwwRedirect

flat earthers fall into several categories.  the first group are the flat earth trolls, dilettantes who just want to provoke outrage. the second group is far more interesting. these are intelligent, engaged people--often physicists, chemists, or informed sophists, who take the flat earth theory and defend it--intelligently. these people will pick you up and throw you down very quickly if you try to debunk th etheory with anything other than hardcore empiricism. in fact, one of their continual points to skeptics is to ask, have you done the experiements, or are you just quoting conventional wisdom? the last group are th enutjobs, who really believe it. these range in skill, understanding, and point of view all over the map. there are very few of them.

anyway, your point about flat earth being concewrned mostly with small victories is well taken. if you're looking at ships disappearing over the horizon, there are explanations which can be cited-- refraction, wave height, bendy light. if youre concerned about gravity, there's universal acceleration that actually gives you weight. if you want to know the geometry behind the equinoxes, there are maps, diagrams, and calculations.

most any criticism of flat earth theory has a provisional answer. but there is no unified field theory, no evolutionary or tectonic paradigm that can explain everything at once. the model tha explains x is inconsistent with y, and y with z, and so on. there is some kind of an answer for everything, buit not for everything at once.

i'm personally interested in flat earth theory because i hear people quote me all sorts of bullshit that they claim explains away the flat earth. i linked to a single "refutation" earlier in this thread, and pointed out how the round earth apologetics in it were mostly insufficient to refute the theory.

the same criticism obtains for many other cosmologies that people take for granted-- the heliocentric solar system (ever read sherlock holmes's opinion of that? https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/291350-that-any-civilized-human-being-in-this-nineteenth-century-should), young earth/old earth (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism), or the skepticism that initially greeted plate tectonics or the theory of organic evolution.

the lesson for me is that people frequently just believe what they're told to believe, and become hostile to challenges. this is the same whether its religion, atheism, the fine tuning of the universe, or whether objects fall faster the heavier they are. for me, these fragile faith bubbles provide an irresistible attraction, although i gauge my persistence depending on circumstances.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Old Seer

If I was a flat earther I'd have to wonder if there's floks on the other side of the disk that makes the planet. Being on this side I can understand that gravity holds things on the surface. So, if I were on the other side would gravity hold me on the surface of that side. Hmmmm. Does anyone know if flat earthers think there's people or another world on the other side. Not having looked into the flat earth idea and always thinking it's absurd dismissed the idea out of hand. Did they ever claim there's another side to this flat disk of theirs and what would be on it.
If there's gravity somewhere below the disk rather than being a factor of the disk itself; the disk would get sucked onto a gravity hole somewhere. Or if the disk has gravity then there wouldn't be enough mass under one's feet to create the same gravity force and one wouldn't weigh as much as they do. Or, how thick do they say the disk is so there's a gravity equivalent. ??? The disk would have to be almost 8000 miles thick. I recall from pics I noted that the ocean is flowing over the edge. There shouldn't be water left on this side.  :-\
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist.

Randy

Old Seer I read somewhere that the planet is constantly pushing upward at 9.8 meters per second giving the illusion of gravity. If that is the model they go by then there wouldn't be anything on the other side of the disk.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

billy rubin

bingo.

there is no such thing as gravity in the most popular flat earth model. what gives objects weight is the universal upwards acceleration of one gravity of the flat earth and its accompanying solar system.

the earth continues to accelerate forever at 1 g, but to an outside observer the velocity would appear to decrease. so the speed of light can never be reached.

the model gets vague when you look for a source of the energy behind the acceleration.

seer, antarctica holds the water in, as it consists of a circular ice wall around the rim of the earth.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Randy

I wonder why no one has tried to tunnel through the wall instead of going over it. It would be a scientific boon to find out what is on the other side. Surely there has to be enough of their ilk to chip in and launch an expedition.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

Old Seer

Quote from: Randy on June 04, 2020, 06:49:42 PM
Old Seer I read somewhere that the planet is constantly pushing upward at 9.8 meters per second giving the illusion of gravity. If that is the model they go by then there wouldn't be anything on the other side of the disk.
If they think that we should be approaching the speed of light soon. Considering that we can't travel the speed of light we should have disintegrated by now. We also would have lost all the air by now also or it should be on the other side of the planet.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist.

Randy

I don't recall what keeps the air from getting out. Is there supposed to be a dome?
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

Old Seer

Quote from: billy rubin on June 04, 2020, 09:52:17 PM
bingo.

there is no such thing as gravity in the most popular flat earth model. what gives objects weight is the universal upwards acceleration of one gravity of the flat earth and its accompanying solar system.

the earth continues to accelerate forever at 1 g, but to an outside observer the velocity would appear to decrease. so the speed of light can never be reached.

the model gets vague when you look for a source of the energy behind the acceleration.

seer, antarctica holds the water in, as it consists of a circular ice wall around the rim of the earth.
Well, thats what I mean, the absurdity of their thinking. The farthest distance from the center of the disk would be close to 4000 miles. Some one surely most have gone that far by now. Magellan should have went over the edge or came upon the ice wall.
I got into this because I came across a video on youtube where some scientific type claimed gravity is not a force. That seemed absurd to me (I suppose somehow that may be correct), and shortly after came here to see what's new and came to this subject and got to wondering what the flat earthers idea of gravity is all about.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist.

Old Seer

Quote from: Randy on June 05, 2020, 03:56:09 AM
I don't recall what keeps the air from getting out. Is there supposed to be a dome?
Thats why I haven't cared to deal with this idea. so it's rather new to me even tho I've been aware of this since a teener. It's just as religions, there's always a way to make it work.

If there's a dome then where does it end. If one goes e or w one would have to see more stars or never get to the dome. I thought I would take the short route and now I'm thinking of looking over all the posts to see where You're all wrong. I don't think so.  ;D
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist.