d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Flat Earth Vs Globe Earth > Why Or Why Not?
Prev14567854Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Views: 7913Replies: 538Track Topic
Member
Posts: 91,081
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
#51
Jun 3 2016 06:53am
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 2 2016 05:15pm)
its funny how you thought circumnavigation on a flat earth was impossible and then you looked it up and was like oooops.

The lack of satellites, idk - but I know a guy who was a satellite Tv installer and claimed there was a satellite that was always in the same spot in the sky -as in total synchronous orbit with the spin of the earth - which is totally impossible
and supposedly these phones just have a stronger antenna that allows them to communicate without being associated with a particular cell tower, and not that you would know but cross ocean communication was possible well before satellites. It involves these cell towers sending out a radio signal that bounces off the ionosphere And in the flat earth model all the land is on the same plane. And remember - the idea is that you need to pay for these services, if you really thought it was cheaper because it might not be a ball earth, people wouldn't each pay 100s a dollar a month to just be totally distracted by their phones.

As for the Wall being real or not or just complete fantasy, well the most popular show on tv has to do with the Wall, and really - Aren't we all worried at least a little bit that Winter is coming?



That's not a strawman, that's a satirical comment about why people need to stick to the basics. Its because they need to feel that everything is known and already explained when its just an illusion that you put complete faith in.
Since we were talking about the Sun on whether it is Fusion or Magnetic - Do you think the Math proves it is fusion or that the math would only be relevant if the Sun was fusion? If anyone claims to think they know what it is for a fact, they are nothing but blatent liars.


I have no problem coming back and admitting blatant mistakes. Circumnavigation may be "explainable" on the FE model but a slew of other things are very difficult for it. Tides being the largest IMO. Beyond that the idea that the world is run by some conspiratory body who falsify all space images of earth, run NASA as a shell corporation, fake all of the space shuttle launchings that have ever happened, that the space station doesnt exist, and that all expeditions into antarctica have been false, with the only justification being "they need to be a vast organization to perpetuate the lie" is quite silly. As is claiming the earth has no spherical shape based on measurements taken over 6 miles in flat areas.

I listened to an hour long interview of the FE model from an author on the subject, any time he was cornered all he had for evidence was "conspiracies need to be convincing". Rivotting stuff....
Member
Posts: 30,432
Joined: Dec 28 2010
Gold: 134.69
#52
Jun 3 2016 07:18am
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 3 2016 07:37am)
Well a strawman is an argument that doesn't make sense, a fallacy - so if you think ball and gravity are that - then you might just be correct.

Also thats just a theory, only one of multiple possibilities, as I stated. If you have a problem then you really need to stick to the most basic ones.



well biosphere is just a domed structure, so I don't think the layers of the atmosphere have to be changed if this theory is true.


no, a strawman is when you create a position the opponent doesnt have and then argue against that. ie. "card sultan thinks dropping pens in water is what made the earth flat"

anyone who says "just a theory" in a scientific context, doesnt understand the word theory...

so you don't know which flat earth model is correct, you just know one of them is? why? The thing about science is we don't get to stick our fingers in our ears and say "nuh uh", we actually have to provide empirical and falsifiable evidence that our model fits reality.
Member
Posts: 91,081
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
#53
Jun 3 2016 07:30am
Quote (dude_927 @ Jun 3 2016 07:18am)
no, a strawman is when you create a position the opponent doesnt have and then argue against that. ie. "card sultan thinks dropping pens in water is what made the earth flat"

anyone who says "just a theory" in a scientific context, doesnt understand the word theory...

so you don't know which flat earth model is correct, you just know one of them is? why? The thing about science is we don't get to stick our fingers in our ears and say "nuh uh", we actually have to provide empirical and falsifiable evidence that our model fits reality.


card doesn't hold many, if any, positions with any seriousness. Its a subtle trick of the conspiracy crowd, rather than being invested in actual theories they simple "question the truth" and if proven wrong drop it and move on to the next roll of tinfoil. Ala "i'm not saying 9-11 was carried out by the Bush administration, just that it's fishy and the official govt story makes no sense." That way if proven factually wrong the goalposts can be moved and they can still hold up their noses with statements like "at least i question stuff, i never fervently believed that i just dont buy the bullshit science bought by corporations."
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
#54
Jun 3 2016 02:52pm
Quote (dude_927 @ Jun 3 2016 08:18am)
no, a strawman is when you create a position the opponent doesnt have and then argue against that. ie. "card sultan thinks dropping pens in water is what made the earth flat"

anyone who says "just a theory" in a scientific context, doesnt understand the word theory...

so you don't know which flat earth model is correct, you just know one of them is? why? The thing about science is we don't get to stick our fingers in our ears and say "nuh uh", we actually have to provide empirical and falsifiable evidence that our model fits reality.


your statement in quotes is just stupid. My statement was just sarcastic, just like the phrase - Don't you science bro? Really the question is What is science - is it things that are observable or is it things that are theorized?

So in my and lots of people's opinion, the official theory about 9/11 does not match what was observable - ergo - that's a huge issue.

FE itself is a just a theory, and as any theory I don't put complete faith in it being correct . Personally I'm 100% fine with there being multiple models as it hasn't had the 100s of years of support from the elite. I think the problem with many people's perspective is that there can be only one, right.
Things can only be right or wrong and you only believe in the right things, right?

Its just like Evolution, another pure theory - do things evolve - 100%, but now they are talking about Micro and Macro evolution and admitting that the theory is far from complete, yet that still won't stop people from thinking it is all 100% correct and putting complete blind faith in it.

As i've pointed out 100s of time - i don't believe in B+W thinking, many do.

Take the NBA championships, I think the GSW's are going to win but I wouldn't be surprised if the Cavs pulled it out - what I hope for the most is a really really hard fought close matches - but I bet your faith is 100% in one team right?

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 3 2016 03:05pm
Member
Posts: 14,319
Joined: Jun 19 2010
Gold: 7,271.48
#55
Jun 3 2016 03:25pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 3 2016 02:52pm)
your statement in quotes is just stupid. My statement was just sarcastic, just like the phrase - Don't you science bro? Really the question is What is science - is it things that are observable or is it things that are theorized?


'science' is theories that are validated by being observed to be true.
The more times/ways a theory is proven to work/be true the stronger a theory it is.

Quote
So in my and lots of people's opinion, the official theory about 9/11 does not match what was observable - ergo - that's a huge issue.

FE itself is a just a theory, and as any theory I don't put complete faith in it being correct . Personally I'm 100% fine with there being multiple models as it hasn't had the 100s of years of support from the elite. I think the problem with many people perspective is that there can be only one, right.
Things can only be right or wrong and you only believe in the right things, right?

Its just like Evolution, another pure theory - do things evolve - 100%, but know they are talking about Micro and Macro evolution and admitting that the theory is far from complete, yet that still won't stop people from thinks it s all 100% correct and putting complete blind faith in it.

As i've pointed out 100s of time - i don't believe in B+W thinking, many do


My question is why would you choose to believe flat earth theory, there is plenty of evidence for globe. Why wild you choose to believe in something that requires extreme stretches of imagination and leaps of faith rather than the simplest option likely being true. Why would you choose to revert back centuries of understanding the observable universe.

This post was edited by remco6 on Jun 3 2016 03:26pm
Member
Posts: 91,081
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
#56
Jun 3 2016 04:16pm
Quote (remco6 @ Jun 3 2016 03:25pm)
'science' is theories that are validated by being observed to be true.
The more times/ways a theory is proven to work/be true the stronger a theory it is.



My question is why would you choose to believe flat earth theory, there is plenty of evidence for globe. Why wild you choose to believe in something that requires extreme stretches of imagination and leaps of faith rather than the simplest option likely being true. Why would you choose to revert back centuries of understanding the observable universe.


because the FE model means NASA and the bourgeoisie behind both them and the govt staged all space exploration and satellites, which by proxy means there is a puppet master pulling the strings of sheeple perpetuating massive fallacies for control and their own gain. Which in turn validates the feeling that most conspiracy theorists feel, that someone is pulling the strings of this earth, were all being lied to, and they (conspiracy theorists) know truths us binary thinkers dont.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 3 2016 04:16pm
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
#57
Jun 3 2016 04:33pm
Quote (remco6 @ Jun 3 2016 04:25pm)
'science' is theories that are validated by being observed to be true.
The more times/ways a theory is proven to work/be true the stronger a theory it is.



My question is why would you choose to believe flat earth theory, there is plenty of evidence for globe. Why wild you choose to believe in something that requires extreme stretches of imagination and leaps of faith rather than the simplest option likely being true. Why would you choose to revert back centuries of understanding the observable universe.


Well there nothing observable about Evolution, it's all theory
There nothing observable about the Sun to say it 100% fusion.
The only thing observable about heliocentric earth are a few composite photos from Nasa, all the observable evidence from a balloon launch suggest it's a flat plane, however they could prove which theory is correct by launching a rocket and showing multiple continuous camera views but they will never do that.

Lets say you go to the top of a mountain, and photograph the horizon and it shows completely flat for 100s of miles on each side of the photograph, Don't you think that's a bit weird, shouldn't there be some curvature on either side, for the earth to be a ball it needs to have 8 inches of drop per mile squared and a view of over 100 miles, should show nearly a mile of drop on the sides, but its always completely flat - Don't you find that odd? In fact - no one has ever been able to show drop, like ever. Do you really think space x flight is ever going to happen, to show people the earth - oh brother. What about when your flying in a plane - and you see the clouds and their all completely flat, do you think you should see curve then? What about ballistic missile launchers that precisely fire their rockets to hit within inches, yet they never need to account for curve? What about architects of bridges that span 20 miles but never need to account for curve and the resulting structures are completely flat?
How can a few composite photos from Nasa outweigh in your mind the 100s of observable things that simple don't agree with the heliocentric model?
Member
Posts: 30,432
Joined: Dec 28 2010
Gold: 134.69
#58
Jun 3 2016 06:35pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 3 2016 03:52pm)
your statement in quotes is just stupid. My statement was just sarcastic, just like the phrase - Don't you science bro? Really the question is What is science - is it things that are observable or is it things that are theorized?

you have no idea what a scientific theory is do you?

Quote
So in my and lots of people's opinion, the official theory about 9/11 does not match what was observable - ergo - that's a huge issue.

not surprised you subscribe to more conspiracy nonsense

Quote
FE itself is a just a theory, and as any theory I don't put complete faith in it being correct . Personally I'm 100% fine with there being multiple models as it hasn't had the 100s of years of support from the elite. I think the problem with many people's perspective is that there can be only one, right.
Things can only be right or wrong and you only believe in the right things, right?

FE isn't even a scientific theory, its a pontification at best (at least what you've given thus far).
There can't be multiple models, the earth cant be round and flat in tandem.
The default position is to not believe until you have sufficient evidence, wild stories and "could be"s belong in story books

Quote
Its just like Evolution, another pure theory - do things evolve - 100%, but now they are talking about Micro and Macro evolution and admitting that the theory is far from complete, yet that still won't stop people from thinking it is all 100% correct and putting complete blind faith in it.

anyone who says "micro and macro" evolution is an idiot, evolution is the change in allele frequencies across a population overtime, not some magic wizardry changing frogs into giraffes.

Quote
As i've pointed out 100s of time - i don't believe in B+W thinking, many do.

no idea what this is

Quote
Take the NBA championships, I think the GSW's are going to win but I wouldn't be surprised if the Cavs pulled it out - what I hope for the most is a really really hard fought close matches - but I bet your faith is 100% in one team right?

i don't watch basketball, but if i did and was forced to choose a winning team i would simply choose whichever team has the highest projected statistics. No faith required.
Member
Posts: 39,758
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Gold: 11,295.00
#59
Jun 3 2016 06:45pm
Quote (card_sultan @ 4 Jun 2016 01:33)
Well there nothing observable about Evolution, it's all theory
There nothing observable about the Sun to say it 100% fusion.
The only thing observable about heliocentric earth are a few composite photos from Nasa, all the observable evidence from a balloon launch suggest it's a flat plane, however they could prove which theory is correct by launching a rocket and showing multiple continuous camera views but they will never do that.

Lets say you go to the top of a mountain, and photograph the horizon and it shows completely flat for 100s of miles on each side of the photograph, Don't you think that's a bit weird, shouldn't there be some curvature on either side, for the earth to be a ball it needs to have 8 inches of drop per mile squared and a view of over 100 miles, should show nearly a mile of drop on the sides, but its always completely flat - Don't you find that odd? In fact - no one has ever been able to show drop, like ever. Do you really think space x flight is ever going to happen, to show people the earth - oh brother. What about when your flying in a plane - and you see the clouds and their all completely flat, do you think you should see curve then? What about ballistic missile launchers that precisely fire their rockets to hit within inches, yet they never need to account for curve? What about architects of bridges that span 20 miles but never need to account for curve and the resulting structures are completely flat?
How can a few composite photos from Nasa outweigh in your mind the 100s of observable things that simple don't agree with the heliocentric model?


lets say the curvature of Earth is 8inches per mile [its a bit less but to keep it simple for someone like urself]. 100miles that 800 inches, 800 inches = 20.32meters [66.7 foot]... do u believe u will be able to notice that little of a difference over 100miles? u probably wont notice a difference of a 1 meter over 1-2 kms yet u expect to see a difference of 20 meters over 160 kms. u clearly dont have any concept of how big the Earth actually is which is one of the simplest concepts to grasp so how can u even begin to understand what other factors play role in the Earth being spherical... ur understanding of physics is probably at a highschool level at best.

if u cant accept anything widely known as evidence just because its widely known then i dont know what u r doing in the science section at all... u dont even seem to know the difference between "your" and "you are"

also could u elaborate on that massive conspiracy theory? what exactly is there to gain from covering up that the planet is flat? please humor me some more.

also whilst u r at it, pls explain the Moon fazes on the flat Earth u r living.
Member
Posts: 14,319
Joined: Jun 19 2010
Gold: 7,271.48
#60
Jun 3 2016 06:55pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Jun 3 2016 04:33pm)
Well there nothing observable about Evolution, it's all theory
There nothing observable about the Sun to say it 100% fusion.
The only thing observable about heliocentric earth are a few composite photos from Nasa, all the observable evidence from a balloon launch suggest it's a flat plane, however they could prove which theory is correct by launching a rocket and showing multiple continuous camera views but they will never do that.


There is observable evidence regarding evolution.
Fossil records, incidents of isolated species on Islands and the resulting variations. It's not observable in the same time frame as something like proving physical properties of substances no , but it's evidence. And when pieced together it makes a strong case for it.

Same for fusion , we can't observe ions and electrons and nuclear particles. But we can propose a structured system with rules and theories and use them to predict results that are observable or measurable.
Almost all of collective human knowledge is built on assumptions that so far prove to be true and require that other rules are true. It's like the brain in a vat, you have to start with the assertion that you believe something even if you can't be certain, if not there is no way of knowing if anything is real.

Quote
Lets say you go to the top of a mountain, and photograph the horizon and it shows completely flat for 100s of miles on each side of the photograph, Don't you think that's a bit weird, shouldn't there be some curvature on either side, for the earth to be a ball it needs to have 8 inches of drop per mile squared and a view of over 100 miles, should show nearly a mile of drop on the sides, but its always completely flat - Don't you find that odd? In fact - no one has ever been able to show drop, like ever. Do you really think space x flight is ever going to happen, to show people the earth - oh brother. What about when your flying in a plane - and you see the clouds and their all completely flat, do you think you should see curve then? What about ballistic missile launchers that precisely fire their rockets to hit within inches, yet they never need to account for curve? What about architects of bridges that span 20 miles but never need to account for curve and the resulting structures are completely flat?
How can a few composite photos from Nasa outweigh in your mind the 100s of observable things that simple don't agree with the heliocentric model?


1mile is 63360" , 8" is 0.0126% of that or about 8000 miles before you'd see a drop of a mile.

Nope not surprised we can't visibly detect that.

If we are a flat object are we a disc floating in space, if so what's underneath us?
Or is earth a pillar fixed in place ? Are we held up by a turtle or is it more like Rolands beams?

This post was edited by remco6 on Jun 3 2016 07:17pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev14567854Next
Closed New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact