I suppose you believe airplanes don’t exist
Why would you suppose something so silly?
The point of rotation doesn’t move - you do (wether on an airplane or by foot).
Rudimentary geometry
Care to elaborate? Do you know of anything else that is measured (as opposed to calculated) with geometry?
Stop lying
Everything you don’t agree with isn’t automatically propaganda a lie.
when someone found the gravitational waves
Actually, they played a semantical trick on you/us.
They did not find gravity waves which are the supposed/imagined waves responsible for gravitation. They “found” gravitational waves which are NOT gravity waves and are not responsible (in theory or otherwise) for the phenomenon of gravity nor gravitation (the theoretical cause of the phenomenon of gravity).
They advertised ($$$) it to us as proof of gravity disingenuously.
I don’t.
“Except the point of rotation moves depending on where you’re standing” - you.
Except it’s not flat.
Perhaps. How can we best measure that to validate it for ourselves?
No one said this. Reply to what was said
“you fucking propagandist.” - you
Timely news from 2004?
Anyhow, i like the idea that there is such a high pesticide content in these sodas that they can now be used like this.
https://assets.infowarsmedia.com/videos/d210eef8-d405-418f-abfa-df455bd45b23.mov (Direct link)
Mostly just angry ickes yelling - i would skip it, nothing new here.
Fucking wrong.
In what way?
The point of rotation doesn’t differ as you move. It stays exactly where it was - even if there are 2 of them in the sky.
Huh?
What is the “point of rotation” that you think moves as you do?
Obviously the point of rotation remain the same, and your vantage to it changes depending on your position. There are certainly places on earth where you can’t see it, for instance.
Wether flat or spherical, the rotation (and center of that ostensible rotation) is constant regardless of where you are - right?
Everything you don’t agree with isn’t automatically propaganda - don’t be silly.
Wether we do or not will not be determined by studying the opposite direction of it :(
Besides, the circular star trails around a central point are supposedly caused by the rotation of the world - not its sphericity.
if you can't even trust the reality of the world you're standing on, what can you trust?
Exactly.
A better question is, “How can i validate/verify claims so that i don’t require (flawed) trust to know at all?”
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.
Why on earth are you claiming otherwise?
Because experiment is a technical vernacular with a rigorous definition. The colloquial definitions most all of us learn are incorrect.
Are you seriously that ignorant?
I was once!
Name one astronomical theory that wasn't verified through experiments.
Most any of them. You pick one, and an experiment or two that bore it.
The reason is because, in science, theory is bore of repeated experiment. Without experiment, there can be no theory.
Mere observation can never be an experiment. There are very good reasons for this in science.
As i said, essentially the only way which astronomy is science is in establishing natural law (what is, not why or how). All whys and hows in astronomy are pseudoscience/mythology/religion masquerading as science.
Astronomical scientific theories are being tested
Not by experiment, no.
otherwise they wouldn't be scientific theories.
Precisely.
Are you sure you know how the scientific method works?
Yes, and more importantly how it doesn’t work.
Most reduced, the basic process is
- Observe phenomena
- Hypothesize the cause of the phenomena
- Validate/invalidate (ideally) the hypothesis by rigorous experiment which establishes a causal link between the hypothesized cause (dv) and the hypothesized effect (iv).
Step 3 is essentially not done at all in astronomy. Fundamentally this is why astronomy is largely nonsense. Speculation built on millennia of it.
Natural law (simply measuring/recording “what is”, not determining why or how) is still a part of science however, and so astronomy is scientific in that regard.
No they are not, not even close.
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!
Well, what's the use in speculation?
In terms of the scientific method - only hypothesis generation.
Record observations, form a hypothesis, and then test it. You know, science stuff.
That’s the fundamental trouble with most all of astronomy. You only ever have the first 2 steps. The “test”, which in science is known as an experiment, is (at least currently and for all of history) impossible. This is the reason that astronomy is largely pseudoscience/mythology/religion misrepresented as science.
There are a few ideas i’ve encountered about it :
- Some speculate that there is no southern pole star, like polaris in the north; and all stars rotate clockwise around polaris (including in the southern “hemisphere”)
- Some speculate that the two ostensible rotations in the sky exist as we see them, and the view that they must be caused by a spherical rotating earth is merely mythology.
- Some speculate that the motions are influenced/distorted by the firmament (aka dome) that covers the world.
In general, i think it is unscientific and silly to look the literal opposite direction of the earth to determine its shape. IF the earth is flat, then all motions of the lights in the sky are obviously the same as we see them now!
You might want to ask questions like this over on flatearthresearch as well if you are looking for more answers.
The horizon doesn’t curve at any attainable altitude. This image is due to distortion (typically barrel distortion from the lens).
Though it is certainly impressive for a private rocket to get 56 miles up. How many people worked on it and how much did it cost to build?
The answers to those questions may explain why most people make observations like this with balloons available for a couple hundred bucks.
My ire is certainly not directed at you!
I am no fan of the fbi, but knapp has been a scumbag for decades. You would only develop a distaste for him, as i have, through study of ufology or possibly living in vegas (he was a news anchor there for a long time, might still be for all i know).
edit On closer inspection, i owe double apologies... The fbi raid was against someone named “arnu” who i’ve never heard of - not the hack knapp :(
George knapp is las vegas human garbage. He is undoubtedly involved in criminal activity.
He is certainly not a ufo researcher, and is largely responsible for the fraud and fellow criminal bob lazar’s fame.
My personal answer for why it matters is twofold.
-
Researching/validating wild claims like the earth is flat is critical to building the skills to be a competent independent reseacher/student.
-
If we are so wrong about something so simple and fundamental, it is quite likely we are wrong about many other things taken for granted as true. If the world is not the shape we are taught, then there may possibly be more of it undiscovered. My imagination can’t help but draw a parallel to what happened to many peasants in europe who fled to “the new world” the moment they knew it existed and a had a chance to escape their wretched lot...
I personally do not think flat earth research has much (if anything) to do with conspiracy. People require no help nor grand conspiracy to be stupid and wrong as they historically always are.
To any and all with an interest in this topic (including critical) please join us on flatearthresearch to explore and exchange views!
So either we have two suns or the sun is millions of miles away
How do you figure? I don’t think many would argue with your “indisputable facts”, but why can’t the one sun (wether millions or a few thousand miles away) rise from the east in both locations? A picture might help to explain your reasoning / conception.
That make sense. They are both fictional/contrived maladies with no rigorous objective (quantitative; biochemical or otherwise) definition and both roughly aspects/“symptoms” of youth.
I dont see the logical error here.
I’ll try to distill it.
In the case of the globe perspective :
Premise : The world is spherical.
Observation : The horizon obscures objects from the bottom up as they recede.
Conclusion : Therefore the world is spherical.
This is circular logic, and hence a logical error - right?
Here is your example, distilled.
Premise : The world is flat.
Observation : I can zoom in on distant ships no longer visible and see the ship and horizon behind them.
Conclusion Therefore the world is flat.
Like the globe believers view, the observation may support the premise - but the conclusion doesn’t (necessarily) follow from it. The conclusion follows from the premise, hence the circular logic.
Furthermore the real trick here is that the ships being zoomed in on in the video are not beyond the horizon yet, they are too close to the observer (for the viewing/weather conditions anyway - we know that the apparent horizon varies in distance with those conditions). If they were obscured (or partially obscured) as in the observation from the globe perspective - then zooming in on them will not unobscure/reveal them.
The reason the boats are no longer visible in your video is NOT because the horizon has obscured them, but because they have (apparently, not actually!) shrunk to be too small to see unaided due to their distance from the observer.
Because the ship can be seen at a distance that is farther than would be possible on a curved earth.
This is surely evidence that something is wrong with the globe model, but different than proving the world flat or spherical. As we know, a die hard believer will just say “refraction” (or some other contrived explanation) and continue to believe the horizon is a fixed edge even when such distant observations are confirmed anyway.
it took me hearing flat earth a lot of times before i actually did the work to research myself. yes, repetition
We were convinced the world was spherical through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education. Undoing that bias takes the same repetition.
Ya, whats the angular component?
It’s roughly the measure of the angle difference between the light coming from the top of the object and the bottom of it as it enters the eye/reciever. If that angle is too small, we can’t resolve the image.
Resolution limits too
They are generally one and the same, and caused by the same thing - the physical concentration of light detectors and the method of processing the image.
Or just a pixel thing?
Same thing as the resolution limits above, just a different word.
I would say out of optical range when something is too small to see.
I agree, however the term i used also implies that the object’s light is actually still reaching the observer/detector - it just can’t be resolved into an object due to lack of adequate resolution.
The boat, which is about 5 miles or more out to sea, and still there is visable horizon behind it.
True.
So how could a curve be possible? Its not. Thus, earth must be flat.
In the view of the globe believers, the horizon and its ability to hide distant objects from the bottom up and reveal them from the top down as they approach is the curve.
In both their view, and ours - the boats in this video are not far enough out to be hidden by the horizon (which is itself an optical illusion, as well as the setting/rising phenomena of distant objects interacting with it). That is why we can zoom in and see them. When they are further than that point, and are truly hidden “beyond the horizon” - zooming in will not bring them back.
It is a logical error to assume that the ability for the horizon to obscure distant objects is proof of a globe. Likewise, and for the same reasons, it is also a logical error to assume that observations like this prove it flat.
They are still following politics like democracy is real
The tv/screens are bad for our health :( Especially if you believe what you see on them is true!
Anyway, it is my view that it is up to us who see to help the others - if we can. We’ll have to keep trying! Repetition works on everyone.
I had this thought once. I have since concluded from research into the subject that both spacetime and the “warping” thereof are entirely fictional. Even einstein suspected it towards the end of his life, and put his thoughts in a letter to a friend shortly before he died.
To you, and anyone else, who may have an interest in exploring ideas like these (including critically/refuting them) please join us on flatearthresearch!
So you assume. However, if the world is flat - you clearly assume incorrectly.
This is a (popular) misunderstanding. Eratosthenes never set out to measure or validate the shape of the earth. He merely set out to calculate the circumference of the earth assuming it was a sphere. His procedure depends on the world being a sphere - so obviously it can’t determine if it is or not. If the earth is not a sphere (or the sun isn’t unfathomably far away, or one of many other unvalidated assumptions aren’t correct) then his calculation and procedure are meaningless.
Exactly.