When a flat Earther tells you that water cannot curve
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (105)
sorted by:
As i keep telling you, i work very hard (and it is central to flat earth research, as well as necessary for the chance at objective study of any kind) not to believe anything!
I used to believe the world was spherical, just as we all were raised to from childhood. Now i no longer believe that, and through my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it. Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)
No, in reality! Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality. In reality, we can trivially demonstrate that weight is not always a force that points downwards. We can also demonstrate that it is intrinsic to the matter itself, and there is no possible matter without weight.
It is established the same way everything in scientific law is - repeated observation/measurement. It is true that the laws of nature may be different at some wacky location but - until and unless we can get there to measure that wacky difference - the principle of uniformitarianism is a given and a pillar of science. You may believe that things happen differently elsewhere or under some special circumstance, but until you confirm it through observation/measurement - it's just belief.
It is true, however - that science is always provisional and subject to change (often extreme change) as new data is collected. The foundation of uniformitarianism, on which science is built, is a speculative posit, i agree - however, it has been a largely valuable one.
Science can only make partial positive statements, never absolute ones. When i say the surface of the earth can't be spherical, it is due to the laws of nature that we established on its surface.
You mean the royal we? You were only asking me, and i was only responding to you. My answers are my own.
You asked why i don't study the "cube earth". I answered that question for myself, and cannot speak for anyone else. You said "exactly", indicating that you now understand why i don't. Are you still misunderstanding something?
I am a part of we, my friend!
But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying. You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical, but your suspicions could be wrong due to misunderstandings of the laws of nature
Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?
It's your limited view of reality. You can demonstrate how objects may behave in ultra-deep water, for example, but until you yourself have been in ultra deep water, you will never know for sure.
And vice versa! You may believe your own observations are universal, but until you've been in areas where there may be key environment changes, it's just belief.
We meaning who? Just you? Because when you use the term "the laws of nature," you may have your own unique view on it vs others.
Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically. To me, it's like you're not answering the question.
I asked why you don't research the cube earth, and you responded "That's why we don't research "the cube earth""
Who is we?
That is always true, for every human that has ever lived (and likely ever will). We should never forget that, or stop seeking out evidence that our ideas (no matter how "true" or "obvious" they are believed to be by "the majority") may be wrong. A large part of my engaging with flat earth research is to find such evidence and otherwise to expose my conclusions to criticism.
Again, when criticizing natural law - you need to provide repeated and repeatable measurement to the contrary of it. There is no such measurement that exists or that anyone can provide to contradict the statements i've made (for centuries, no less). This includes you, but you are certainly encouraged to try!
I've determined that it cannot be, through study of science, its history, and the natural world directly. It is well beyond suspicion - and has reached conclusion. However, that does not prevent me - or you - or anyone from being wrong! If i am wrong, i should like to know it! How about you? If the world were not spherical as we are taught, would you want to know it - even if it didn't benefit you personally and further caused ridicule and shunning from others?
No! It's ours!
Again, who cares what is demonstrable in someones view (aka imagination)?! We care what is demonstrable in the same objective manifest reality that we all share. This is another pillar of science.
There are many reasons, but the main one is due to the behavior of water (laws of hydrostatics). The oceans and other large water bodies CAN exist upon the flat top of a cube. They cannot on the sides and bottom. This is also demonstrable at any scale you choose to do the demonstration on. Things are obviously even worse with a sphere - any scale demonstration will show you those same laws of hydrostatics (ultimately - once the water stops moving, that is) that haven't changed in centuries.
The things i am talking about are the laws of science. They apply to anyone who is studying or practicing it! The point that you seem to be missing is that the spherical worldview is a belief millennia old (has not been empirically validated) and that the laws of science plainly contradict that belief.
I agree that this doesn't make it impossible that the world is spherical (i.e. that belief happens/ed to be correct), it just makes it very unlikely and would require new/amended laws in order for it to become scientifically possible.
In science we don't need to believe, and belief significantly hampers it! Furthermore, belief is the enemy of all knowledge and objective study of any kind (it's known as bias).
The observations are not just mine and as they are demonstrable - can be repeated by anyone. Anyone is equally qualified to conduct or find the observations of others that contradict them. Such contradictions do not exist to the best of my knowledge and research. Again, you are most welcome and encouraged to supply such things! If i am wrong, i should like to know it. Hopefully, you feel the same way.
I used "I" in the quote, but in general when i use "we" i am talking about us - you and i, humanity, and/or those knowledgeable in science.
That's the wonderful thing about laws; they are objective. It isn't a "view", it is a repeatable measurement. A demonstrable behavior of nature; one of which is that water's surface at rest (barring negligible surface tension artifact) is always flat, level, and horizontal. This has been a law for over 3 centuries only because it is repeatable, demonstrable, and has no measurement to the contrary (under natural conditions, i mention this default/universal caveat because with enough energy input you can fight against water's natural behavior and the laws of hydrostatics).
In that specific context it was to remind you of how silly your question was. We don't research the "cube earth" because there is no research of others to study which concludes/posits a cube earth (that i am aware of), and we don't [shouldn't/musn't] study the shape of the earth assuming it cubic (or flat, or spherical) because such bias would prevent objective study!
In that context it was : humanity.
And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?
Due to your perception, yes. Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.
It's yours, specifically.
Unless, weight causes objects to converge on the center of a mass, such as a sphere, and not in a unilateral direction, then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.
Which could be this one.
Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings, and the laws still apply as written.
You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.
Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.
I'm asking about you, specifically. There's no "we" here, unless you're implying you work among multiple people as a team.
Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.
::gagging noise:: spare me
Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?
Of course i have other conclusions and evidence from my research, but let's finish chewing what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.
True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!
No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest in the manner required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.
You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.
I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and am no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!
Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.
Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!
So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.
Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).
Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".
It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.
So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!
Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)