A likely explanation to the flatties
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
I am open to debate, but I will not debate false claims and propaganda. I am curious why evidence does not prove one way or the other.
There are many points made by people who choose to belief flat earth I do not agree with, that is fine. Being someone into flat earth implies there are many such beliefs associated and I am looking for the actual evidential points.
Not statements like, see? humans can't build big structures. yadda yadda.
So, when it comes to many of the flat earth propositions and the track record with the feds it is clear that it is used as a psyop to control and take time from people.
In this equation, we have more unknowns than knowns the result is, an estimate.
Does this not in itself prove to you that this is subjective analysis based on imaginary inputs and ideas? There is no way to produce this answer definitively, this is the exact reason why the current state of astrophysics is such a mess, we have all these people asserting they can calculate a thing and then with conviction make these claims to people to convey their own personal 'belief' regarding the information they have collected. This is not science, this is more like alchemy.
So, do people choose to 'believe' in science? absolutely, especially in astrophysics. But more importantly, it is this belief that drives one to form understandings and if you are not able to deduce your understanding from facts or evidence, then it remains a belief.
If you cannot find evidential proof then the odds are you are just dealing with guesswork, which is why any answer you find regarding this question is associated as such, just estimations based on what we think we know.
Ok, so given the forces at play, you are assuming that only velocity is modified, but you are ignoring all the other various forces involved in a gravity orbit. I have a pretty firm grip on a variety of mathematics. So I will not proclaim to understand nor be able to measure them all. Many have produced much guesswork on the topic and it is better than assuming it is not in orbit imo. There are still mysteries here to be truly unraveled, we simply insert a constant or otherwise generated value to continue and present you with what we think we know.
When you see the moon, orbiting the earth or moving across the firmament rest assured there are forces at play you are not in full understanding of. There is no need to force it to fill some claim made in the past.
I do not feel there is a human on earth who has what it takes to provide full explanation on the cosmos, it is very much a work in progress. We are on the verge of dispelling the notion that the sun is a ball of gas, do you have any idea what this will do to astrophysics as we know it?
I am fine if you want to accept a flat earth, I want to know why. So far we have these points to argue on, but I feel we are done on these points as none of them are anything other than subjective analysis and nothing like measuring the tensile strength of steel.
Scientific method is rooted in belief, it starts with a desire to understand a given entity. This is belief in both the entity and the ability to unravel an understanding. As we move through the process of scientific analysis we produce measurable quantities. This becomes the understanding and collection of facts as we know it. While also realizing what we think we know may be wrong at any given moment we are ready to adapt and conform to the new information.
So, do not try to discount beliefs as usable constructs that help us innovate ideas and get to new plateaus of thinking.
We can start with the hypothesis that we are just matter in a petri dish in some science experiment performed by a being so advanced we cannot comprehend.
Why not? can you disprove that? of course not. Can you prove it? hah, good luck.