Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying.

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!

You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical

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?

It's your limited view of reality.

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.

Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?

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.

And vice versa!

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.

You may believe your own observations are universal

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.

We meaning who?

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.

you may have your own unique view on it vs others.

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).

Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically

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!

Who is we?

In that context it was : humanity.

33 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying.

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!

You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical

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?

It's your limited view of reality.

No! It's ours!

Again, who cares what is demonstrable in someones view (aka imagination)?! We care what is demonstrable in the same shared objective manifest reality that we all share. This is another pillar of science.

Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?

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.

And vice versa!

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.

You may believe your own observations are universal

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.

We meaning who?

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.

you may have your own unique view on it vs others.

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).

Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically

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!

Who is we?

In that context it was : humanity.

33 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying.

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!

You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical

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?

It's your limited view of reality.

No! In ours!

Again, who cares what is demonstrable in someones view (aka imagination)?! We care what is demonstrable in the same shared objective manifest reality that we all share. This is another pillar of science.

Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?

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.

And vice versa!

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.

You may believe your own observations are universal

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.

We meaning who?

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.

you may have your own unique view on it vs others.

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).

Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically

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!

Who is we?

In that context it was : humanity.

33 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying.

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!

You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical

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?

It's your limited view of reality.

No! In ours!

Again, who cares what is demonstrable in someones view (aka imagination)?! We care what is demonstrable in the same shared objective manifest reality that we all share. This is another pillar of science.

Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?

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 the laws of hydrostatics (ultimately - once the water stops moving, that is) that haven't changed in centuries.

And vice versa!

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 to be correct), it just makes it very unlikely and would require new/amended laws in order for it to become scientifically possible.

You may believe your own observations are universal

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.

We meaning who?

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.

you may have your own unique view on it vs others.

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 is 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).

Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically

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!

Who is we?

In that context it was : humanity.

34 days ago
1 score