No I have not really explained the response yet at all, thus the brief opportunity to provide more points to the short list I had created based on your writings.
First of all, Let's be clear on what a belief is.
A belief is a a state of mind one obtains when they feel they have acceptance on a given topic when framed in a given perspective, so they align towards agreement within that framing.
This does not require to have a basis of fact or evidence, just statements with claims is all that is required.
If you were to say to me, wef is crazy and the oligarchs running all the west are insane.
I would immediately align with you in full agreement, no evidence to speak of, no other inputs required. we are aligned, perhaps related to my current bias.
So when does it go from being a belief, to being a construct of reality?
Generally this occurs based on experience, so for example. If I was say a metallurgist questing for a alloy type, there have been many simple experiments one can conduct to deduce what the content of a given piece of matter is. This forms the basis of ones understanding of what content they have and from there can extract the necessary amounts and produce the desired alloy.
This is no longer a belief at all, this is a systematic process of deduction working with known inputs and outcomes.
So, when you want to compare this to capturing the curvature of the earth in a given location, you must realize the total amount of inputs to deduce the correct answer is not attainable, and we end up using statistics and guesswork to fill in the blank areas. The end result is we have made many assumptions along the way and the resulting end point is a blur given which inputs were measured.
The same is said regarding the positioning of the north star with respect to our understanding of what we are seeing. So many assumed inputs are created and used to define the observation that it is now completely subjective. You have about 10,000 other inputs to resolve prior to using the one you are standing on as an example. This is not science, this is guesswork, where you reduce what you have to what you can understand and accept it.
To top it all off, we end up with claims that the reason we do not feel velocity as we orbit is made based on all the misunderstandings of how physics interact.
I think this one by itself is a clear indication that we have ended up on a tangent of nonsense, in order to accept this, we basically have to reject everything else.
For example, we claim to measure solar wind coming into the atmosphere, we claim to calculate the magnetic fields the interplanetary relationship of magnetics between earth and sun, we have devised ways to predict weather and earthquakes using solar inputs.
All of this has to be thrown in the trash to accept these beliefs that do not have any answers at all. none.
So, when we look at the carbon on the planet and we measure the difference we claim to find solar carbon and cosmic carbon, what does flat earth have to say?
reject it all?
I would have to check my brain at the door in order to enter a flat earth society meetup because none of the data we have collected measured and analyzed can be accepted. This is preposterous.
At the end of the day, flat earth belief acceptance is just an escape from what we know, plasma cosmology and electric universe theory have much better explanations if you are trying to get away from the big bang.
You can make an observation and misinterpret what you observed, which is what you're consistently doing. Any time someone points out your errors you don't acknowledge it, you just pivot to something else. Flat earth is a belief system of the worst kind, it's a perversion of the truth that sounds reasonable to the uneducated.
I have pointed out numerous errors on your posts time and time again...you fail to do the math to show anything....you make stupid nonsequitors to avoid meaty deep dives....so what's the point...you ignored then.....that's bad faith on your part.
I will apologize for sounding dismissive, I do not mean to come across as such; more that, I have not yet accepted any of the beliefs put forth yet.
I state they are beliefs because when you are a proponent of a construct in a way that voices acceptance and cannot produce meaningful evidence to the statement it is simply a belief.
If I was to say "there is a god" clearly I could not prove such a thing, so it is just a claim revealing a belief.
If I was to say "this rock is hard" we can easily examine the rock and compare its hardness properties to a variety of other objects and objectively concur and agree on some parameters. What this does is produce 'rock' hard evidence to the claim removing belief and replacing it with accepted explanation.
For me, this would be the goal of any activity regarding a claim that there is any value in stating the earth is flat.
Firstly, it is a crazy topic because it makes no physical sense, it is founded long ago, back when humans were easily manipulated into any form of belief.
Secondly, the claim that we understand enough to prove one way or the other without significant effort and tooling is simple minded. If we could easily prove it, we would have the evidence.
No I have not really explained the response yet at all, thus the brief opportunity to provide more points to the short list I had created based on your writings.
First of all, Let's be clear on what a belief is. A belief is a a state of mind one obtains when they feel they have acceptance on a given topic when framed in a given perspective, so they align towards agreement within that framing.
This does not require to have a basis of fact or evidence, just statements with claims is all that is required.
If you were to say to me, wef is crazy and the oligarchs running all the west are insane.
I would immediately align with you in full agreement, no evidence to speak of, no other inputs required. we are aligned, perhaps related to my current bias.
So when does it go from being a belief, to being a construct of reality?
Generally this occurs based on experience, so for example. If I was say a metallurgist questing for a alloy type, there have been many simple experiments one can conduct to deduce what the content of a given piece of matter is. This forms the basis of ones understanding of what content they have and from there can extract the necessary amounts and produce the desired alloy.
This is no longer a belief at all, this is a systematic process of deduction working with known inputs and outcomes.
So, when you want to compare this to capturing the curvature of the earth in a given location, you must realize the total amount of inputs to deduce the correct answer is not attainable, and we end up using statistics and guesswork to fill in the blank areas. The end result is we have made many assumptions along the way and the resulting end point is a blur given which inputs were measured.
The same is said regarding the positioning of the north star with respect to our understanding of what we are seeing. So many assumed inputs are created and used to define the observation that it is now completely subjective. You have about 10,000 other inputs to resolve prior to using the one you are standing on as an example. This is not science, this is guesswork, where you reduce what you have to what you can understand and accept it.
To top it all off, we end up with claims that the reason we do not feel velocity as we orbit is made based on all the misunderstandings of how physics interact.
I think this one by itself is a clear indication that we have ended up on a tangent of nonsense, in order to accept this, we basically have to reject everything else.
For example, we claim to measure solar wind coming into the atmosphere, we claim to calculate the magnetic fields the interplanetary relationship of magnetics between earth and sun, we have devised ways to predict weather and earthquakes using solar inputs.
All of this has to be thrown in the trash to accept these beliefs that do not have any answers at all. none.
So, when we look at the carbon on the planet and we measure the difference we claim to find solar carbon and cosmic carbon, what does flat earth have to say? reject it all?
I would have to check my brain at the door in order to enter a flat earth society meetup because none of the data we have collected measured and analyzed can be accepted. This is preposterous.
At the end of the day, flat earth belief acceptance is just an escape from what we know, plasma cosmology and electric universe theory have much better explanations if you are trying to get away from the big bang.
You can make an observation and misinterpret what you observed, which is what you're consistently doing. Any time someone points out your errors you don't acknowledge it, you just pivot to something else. Flat earth is a belief system of the worst kind, it's a perversion of the truth that sounds reasonable to the uneducated.
I have pointed out numerous errors on your posts time and time again...you fail to do the math to show anything....you make stupid nonsequitors to avoid meaty deep dives....so what's the point...you ignored then.....that's bad faith on your part.
Let's take your "change in velocity" example. This is explained by Newton's first law of motion. Do you accept it as generally correct?
I will apologize for sounding dismissive, I do not mean to come across as such; more that, I have not yet accepted any of the beliefs put forth yet.
I state they are beliefs because when you are a proponent of a construct in a way that voices acceptance and cannot produce meaningful evidence to the statement it is simply a belief.
If I was to say "there is a god" clearly I could not prove such a thing, so it is just a claim revealing a belief.
If I was to say "this rock is hard" we can easily examine the rock and compare its hardness properties to a variety of other objects and objectively concur and agree on some parameters. What this does is produce 'rock' hard evidence to the claim removing belief and replacing it with accepted explanation.
For me, this would be the goal of any activity regarding a claim that there is any value in stating the earth is flat.
Firstly, it is a crazy topic because it makes no physical sense, it is founded long ago, back when humans were easily manipulated into any form of belief.
Secondly, the claim that we understand enough to prove one way or the other without significant effort and tooling is simple minded. If we could easily prove it, we would have the evidence.
Got some shit to do, I will return to this.