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:
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 ;)
No harm in it! I have no issue with readdressing points. Basically it means we're "continuing to chew what's in our mouths," after all.
Of course reality is "ours." I said your view of reality is yours and yours alone.
Not at larger scales, you can't. Your view is limited to what you have attainable with your limited equipment.
Yes, laws are objective
I'm saying your understanding of laws is subjective.
Why not "earth shape research"?
Surely you realize how calling it "flat earth" not only invites bias, but also implies your own.
I see you write "I am open to suggestions," but I very much doubt that you are, or that you have any intention of changing it.
I want the answers to them. I just think fortune cookie responses as well as not reading the actual question are a bit disrespectful