IF the earth is flat, then all motions of the lights in the sky are obviously the same as we see them now!
No they are not, not even close.
The simplest example is the Sun. Assuming the "central north pole, south pole surrounds us" model, how does the Sun work?
If it "rises" at the edge of the Earth and crosses it, that means some people would see it go East to West, others West to East, and a few would see if go North to South or South to North. Have you ever heard of that happening? Also, the North pole would be the tropics as the sun would pass directly over it every day and there would be no such thing as "midnight Sun".
The other possibility would be that the Sun hangs directly over the Earth at all times but can't be seen everywhere because of some sort of "fog", or opaque atmosphere (the stars would have to be on or inside this atmosphere to be visible when the Sun is gone). It then moves above the Earth in a circle. Does it revolve around anything or is it on some kind of track? Don't know! It would also have to be a spiral for the seasons to change as we observe them. What causes that? Don't know! Also, the spiral would have to be cyclical; shrinking in the summer and expanding in the winter. What limits the spiral at those points and what force acts on the Sun to change it's direction every year? Don't know! Maybe lizard people?
FE fails basic geometry, well before you get to anything as complicated as light refraction.
How do we explain the observable movements of the Sun in the heliocentric model? The Earth is a globe which revolves once a day in the same direction; it's tilted so that the hemispheres are warmer when they are oriented towards the Sun, exactly like we see when using solar panels. Done.
Motions of lights in the sky are extremely different based on the shape of the Earth; this is really basic stuff.
You misunderstand. It is a tautology. It is true by definition, and is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
IF the world is flat, then all observations we make occur on a flat earth. The idea that any of them should change/be different is absurd.
how does the Sun work?
We don’t know, just like all of humankind before us and for the same reasons!
In any case, why do you need to know how the sun works to measure the shape of the world? That’s silly!
Also, the North pole would be the tropics as the sun would pass directly over it every day and there would be no such thing as "midnight Sun".
Your reasoning is silly. The sun does what it does, and our observations of it don’t change when our perceptions of the shape of the world do. That would be crazy.
There is a midnight sun, the sun does rise in the east and set in the west, things that don’t happen (like the sun going from west to east) - don’t happen. The world is still whatever shape it is - despite what the lights in the sky do.
In many flat earth conceptions the sun merely travels in circles above us clockwise around the north pole. The size of that circle changes in a periodic cycle over the year causing the midnight sun (smallest circle). In any case, this has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
or opaque atmosphere
This is only part of it. The main cause of sunset/sunrise and night is refraction caused by the density gradient in our air which convexly curves light towards the surface.
Does it revolve around anything or is it on some kind of track? Don't know!
Correct. Knowing you don’t know is better than believing incorrect mythology because you are proud and afraid of being ignorant.
Don't know! Maybe lizard people?
You are free to create an alternative mythology, like lizard people, if you like. There are certainly less insane speculative possibilities to consider/imagine.
Currently you are just biased to your current mythology, as most cultures before you were and for the same reasons.
FE fails basic geometry
Completely silly. Most geometry is planar. The world is whatever shape it is. Geometry is unaffected (why would it be? you say a lot of crazy stuff!)
Done
So go back to sleep then. Don’t question, don’t be skeptical, and don’t research contradictions to that model or alternatives to it. Done, indeed!
this is really basic stuff.
It is really basic belief which we are indoctrinated in through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education.... Recognizing why it is belief, not science, and how reality contradicts those beliefs is important and valuable - though not for everyone.
If you are interested in learning about other perspectives, or just refining/sharing your own - please join us to exchange views on flatearthresearch!
IF the world is flat, then all observations we make occur on a flat earth.
Jack, I've had a number of discussions with you, and I've read through even more of your threads with folks on this forum. I'm pretty convinced that your discussions with people would be more productive if you reduced your use of this tautology.
I think your intent in deploying it is to challenge someone's line of reasoning when they stray too close to conflating consistency with evidence, of blurring observation with experiment. I think your intent is to make clear that the ball model's consistency with astronomical observations isn't evidence per se for the ball model.
But, as is the case in this thread, using the tautology almost always distracts from your point rather than clarifies it. Readers often assume (and you make it easy for them to assume) that you're setting up a straw man that says our observations literally, causally shape the world, which nobody you've talked to here actually thinks. It just sidetracks the conversation while you have to explain to the reader that:
You misunderstand.
I think your discussions would be better served if you found another way of raising this point. Maybe a way of explaining that of course any model of the world's shape needs to be consistent with our astronomical observations, but that consistency alone is only circumstantial evidence at best and is made weaker by the existence of any alternative models that are equally consistent with observation.
I think it’s hard to “break through” and really convey my meaning despite the verbiage - but you seem to have gotten it! Hopefully your rephrasing will be of use.
I think it is possible, as you suggest - that the statement is being misunderstood as some sort of witchcraft/“the secret” strawman - but it certainly isn’t in the statement itself. It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent” (which to me, they are not - they are merely the recipient in a conversation) which all strawmen need to be, by definition.
I’ll give it a whirl and try phrasing it differently when, inevitably, this point comes up in the future.
It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent”
That may be true of that statement in isolation, but it's a wider pattern in some of the things you say. For example, when the conversation recipient said this:
Also, the North pole would be the tropics as the sun would pass directly over it every day and there would be no such thing as "midnight Sun".
You responded first with:
Your reasoning is silly. The sun does what it does, and our observations of it don’t change when our perceptions of the shape of the world do. That would be crazy.
I'm sure you're not trying to misrepresent the other person's point, but responses like that strike the reader (at least me) as either a strawman, deliberate obtuseness, or a severe misunderstanding. As you said, it would be silly to claim the observations change the actual path of the sun, which is why it seems obvious to me that that's not what they're suggesting. I'm pretty certain they're trying to point out what they see as an inconsistency between what we observe ("midnight Sun") and the predictions of a flat earth model ("the sun would pass over it every day").
I think a more appropriate response is to address their perceived inconsistency. Since it sounds like you accept observations of midnight sun, I think that means explaining how a midnight sun could be consistent with a flat earth.
Edit: I see you do offer such an explanation a couple paragraphs after the above quote, so I don't think you're misunderstanding their point. But I maintain that the intervening paragraphs about what a silly reasoning it would be if... are only hurting your clarity and liable to put your conversation partner on the defensive, which I believe is (usually) the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do.
Just more food for thought, and thanks again for being open about it.
No they are not, not even close.
The simplest example is the Sun. Assuming the "central north pole, south pole surrounds us" model, how does the Sun work?
If it "rises" at the edge of the Earth and crosses it, that means some people would see it go East to West, others West to East, and a few would see if go North to South or South to North. Have you ever heard of that happening? Also, the North pole would be the tropics as the sun would pass directly over it every day and there would be no such thing as "midnight Sun".
The other possibility would be that the Sun hangs directly over the Earth at all times but can't be seen everywhere because of some sort of "fog", or opaque atmosphere (the stars would have to be on or inside this atmosphere to be visible when the Sun is gone). It then moves above the Earth in a circle. Does it revolve around anything or is it on some kind of track? Don't know! It would also have to be a spiral for the seasons to change as we observe them. What causes that? Don't know! Also, the spiral would have to be cyclical; shrinking in the summer and expanding in the winter. What limits the spiral at those points and what force acts on the Sun to change it's direction every year? Don't know! Maybe lizard people?
FE fails basic geometry, well before you get to anything as complicated as light refraction.
How do we explain the observable movements of the Sun in the heliocentric model? The Earth is a globe which revolves once a day in the same direction; it's tilted so that the hemispheres are warmer when they are oriented towards the Sun, exactly like we see when using solar panels. Done.
Motions of lights in the sky are extremely different based on the shape of the Earth; this is really basic stuff.
You misunderstand. It is a tautology. It is true by definition, and is tellingly difficult for the indoctrinated to grasp.
IF the world is flat, then all observations we make occur on a flat earth. The idea that any of them should change/be different is absurd.
We don’t know, just like all of humankind before us and for the same reasons!
In any case, why do you need to know how the sun works to measure the shape of the world? That’s silly!
Your reasoning is silly. The sun does what it does, and our observations of it don’t change when our perceptions of the shape of the world do. That would be crazy.
There is a midnight sun, the sun does rise in the east and set in the west, things that don’t happen (like the sun going from west to east) - don’t happen. The world is still whatever shape it is - despite what the lights in the sky do.
In many flat earth conceptions the sun merely travels in circles above us clockwise around the north pole. The size of that circle changes in a periodic cycle over the year causing the midnight sun (smallest circle). In any case, this has nothing to do with the shape of the world.
This is only part of it. The main cause of sunset/sunrise and night is refraction caused by the density gradient in our air which convexly curves light towards the surface.
Correct. Knowing you don’t know is better than believing incorrect mythology because you are proud and afraid of being ignorant.
You are free to create an alternative mythology, like lizard people, if you like. There are certainly less insane speculative possibilities to consider/imagine.
Currently you are just biased to your current mythology, as most cultures before you were and for the same reasons.
Completely silly. Most geometry is planar. The world is whatever shape it is. Geometry is unaffected (why would it be? you say a lot of crazy stuff!)
So go back to sleep then. Don’t question, don’t be skeptical, and don’t research contradictions to that model or alternatives to it. Done, indeed!
It is really basic belief which we are indoctrinated in through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education.... Recognizing why it is belief, not science, and how reality contradicts those beliefs is important and valuable - though not for everyone.
If you are interested in learning about other perspectives, or just refining/sharing your own - please join us to exchange views on flatearthresearch!
Jack, I've had a number of discussions with you, and I've read through even more of your threads with folks on this forum. I'm pretty convinced that your discussions with people would be more productive if you reduced your use of this tautology.
I think your intent in deploying it is to challenge someone's line of reasoning when they stray too close to conflating consistency with evidence, of blurring observation with experiment. I think your intent is to make clear that the ball model's consistency with astronomical observations isn't evidence per se for the ball model.
But, as is the case in this thread, using the tautology almost always distracts from your point rather than clarifies it. Readers often assume (and you make it easy for them to assume) that you're setting up a straw man that says our observations literally, causally shape the world, which nobody you've talked to here actually thinks. It just sidetracks the conversation while you have to explain to the reader that:
I think your discussions would be better served if you found another way of raising this point. Maybe a way of explaining that of course any model of the world's shape needs to be consistent with our astronomical observations, but that consistency alone is only circumstantial evidence at best and is made weaker by the existence of any alternative models that are equally consistent with observation.
Just a thought from a reader.
Thanks for the feedback!
I think it’s hard to “break through” and really convey my meaning despite the verbiage - but you seem to have gotten it! Hopefully your rephrasing will be of use.
I think it is possible, as you suggest - that the statement is being misunderstood as some sort of witchcraft/“the secret” strawman - but it certainly isn’t in the statement itself. It doesn’t even apply / isn’t directed at or about the views of the “opponent” (which to me, they are not - they are merely the recipient in a conversation) which all strawmen need to be, by definition.
I’ll give it a whirl and try phrasing it differently when, inevitably, this point comes up in the future.
Thanks for listening!
That may be true of that statement in isolation, but it's a wider pattern in some of the things you say. For example, when the conversation recipient said this:
You responded first with:
I'm sure you're not trying to misrepresent the other person's point, but responses like that strike the reader (at least me) as either a strawman, deliberate obtuseness, or a severe misunderstanding. As you said, it would be silly to claim the observations change the actual path of the sun, which is why it seems obvious to me that that's not what they're suggesting. I'm pretty certain they're trying to point out what they see as an inconsistency between what we observe ("midnight Sun") and the predictions of a flat earth model ("the sun would pass over it every day").
I think a more appropriate response is to address their perceived inconsistency. Since it sounds like you accept observations of midnight sun, I think that means explaining how a midnight sun could be consistent with a flat earth.
Edit: I see you do offer such an explanation a couple paragraphs after the above quote, so I don't think you're misunderstanding their point. But I maintain that the intervening paragraphs about what a silly reasoning it would be if... are only hurting your clarity and liable to put your conversation partner on the defensive, which I believe is (usually) the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do.
Just more food for thought, and thanks again for being open about it.