Could the earth be flat?

I'm trying to be cunstructively critical here. I am an advocate of skepticism but that's because I'm an advocate of passing as much true info as possible.

The more you know, the more you realize there is the know and you can't stand on foundations of presupposition or presumption. Question your foundations and don't stop learning about them even if you're relearning.

I'm not saying you lack fundamental understanding out of ad hominem. You're very philosophical, but philosophy only provides questions, not answers. I want you to go read and learn. That's more real understanding and properly structured philosophy that you can pass on to others.
 
I have a telescope I use to look at other near planets.

They appear like a circle from any angle I've viewed them, that only works with a sphere.

Why would our planet be the exception from sphere form?
 
http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/05/q-what-would-earth-be-like-to-us-if-it-were-a-cube-instead-of-spherical-is-this-even-possible/

nutspecial said:
Edit. Yah know Dauntless your posts sometimes come across as very weird. . . Even for me :p
Click to expand...

If that's the 'This Crazy Notion' guy, I didn't say I liked him, I just said I got that he was a comedy act. I went ahead and watched the end of his video. He made the statement that "You Atheists who believe in science and not religion, you're believing in Jesuits. . . ." Is he referring to the fact that the Jesuits WERE the head scientists of, I'm not sure, 1600-1750 maybe? Oh, there's plenty in science from that era that the Revisors General tried to stop, so it ain't all Jesuit. Try as they might, the Jesuits weren't able to bring back the Dark Ages. They WERE able to bring an end to the Jesuati, damn free thinkers that they were. No more running amok by that heliocentric Bonaventura Cavalieri or Stefano degli Angeli when the Jesuits get done with THEM. Seems the Jesuits were terrified by such thoughts as:

2-dimensional case: Suppose two regions in a plane are included between two parallel lines in that plane. If every line parallel to these two lines intersects both regions in line segments of equal length, then the two regions have equal areas.
3-dimensional case: Suppose two regions in three-space (solids) are included between two parallel planes. If every plane parallel to these two planes intersects both regions in cross-sections of equal area, then the two regions have equal volumes.
Click to expand...

Imagine what the Revisors General would have thought of Calculus. I guess they'd have spared me some suffering, though.

And it's not weird EVEN to you, It's weird to you, of course. And of course I know it's weird to you, how could it not be? If it wasn't weird to you, it's be weird, period. (Shutter.) Don't make me think about such things.

Maybe this will be a Jesuit safe image fer ya. Weird, eh? (Of course.)

NASTRAGULL%2B%2B%2B%2B%2Bsci%2Bfi%2B%2B(54).gif
 
Thanks r3, some good points there. I am just a viewer/observer. I may draw conclusions, and may be able to answer some questions, but sometimes real answers won't exist until you see enough of the picture.
I am sure that the official and status quo is not the whole picture. I am sure we all will always have the opportunity to gain more knowledge and understanding.

Lfp, thanks, that's a good question. And a hard one to answer. How about switching it to 'why couldn't it be the exception'? That's kinda the approach I took.
Also, I've never looked thru a telescope, (and don't trust nasa to tell me the truth), but can we see all sides of the planets? After all, we never get to see more than one side of the moon from anywhere on earth, yes? That's observable with the naked eye, as is the visually identical travel of the moon and stars each night. Does science have an answer for that (huge difference in distances and speed)?

I also am confused with the view of the chicago skyline across lake Michigan a few pages back. Based on the curvature of the globe, a 'mirage' is not a good enough explanation for me as to how the buildings are visable at 60 miles. These guys have some good arguments, and alot of them based on curvature, horizon, vanishing point, perspective, height of view, and the weird stuff surrounding nasa and it's actions.

Also, while I might have your attention, is there any truth to moonlight actually having cooling properties, the opposite of sunlight? I plan to test this for myself, because it should be easy. If so, what are the optical/thermodynamic repercussions??
 
r3volved said:
You're attempting to find flaws in hard scientific theories and you're finding it really easy for yourself (and frustrating for everyone else) because you lack a fundamental understanding of scientific theories.
Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, nicely summarised :) It's the same issue with the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

N.S. you claim to acknowledge the points made by R3volved but don't appear to have taken anything on board? Your last post just plows on with the same faulty reasoning as before.
 
nutspecial said:
Thanks r3, some good points there. I am just a viewer/observer. I may draw conclusions, and may be able to answer some questions, but sometimes real answers won't exist until you see enough of the picture.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you're standing in a museum hall and you don't know what picture you're supposed to be looking at.

nutspecial said:
I am sure that the official and status quo is not the whole picture.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? Is this an appeal to emotion ("feels right, so must be right")?

nutspecial said:
I am sure we all will always have the opportunity to gain more knowledge and understanding.
Click to expand...
No matter how much we know, we will always have the opportunity for discovery. That's what is meant by "the more you know, the more you realize there is to know". Don't cheat yourself with fallacious foundations.

nutspecial said:
Lfp, thanks, that's a good question. And a hard one to answer. How about switching it to 'why couldn't it be the exception'? That's kinda the approach I took.
Click to expand...
Why would you take that approach? What is your mindset that the earth is the only exception out of countless >=earth-sized objects that we can see very clearly?

nutspecial said:
Also, I've never looked thru a telescope, (and don't trust nasa to tell me the truth), but can we see all sides of the planets?
Click to expand...
If you've never looked through a telescope and you don't believe anything NASA says, then where are you learning about whats in space, if not from those who probe space? Do you get your astrophysics from the clerk at the corner store?

nutspecial said:
After all, we never get to see more than one side of the moon from anywhere on earth, yes? That's observable with the naked eye, as is the visually identical travel of the moon and stars each night. Does science have an answer for that (huge difference in distances and speed)?
Click to expand...
Science does have an answer and it again shows that you're lacking fundamental understanding of the moon. The moon is tidal locked with the earth and it rotates at the same speed as it orbits earth. There is no 'dark side of the moon' in relation to the sun - just to the earth...and the dark side means the side we can't see...it's not always necessarily dark.
Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking or captured rotation) occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another, an effect known as synchronous rotation. For example, the same side of the Moon always faces the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Click to expand...

nutspecial said:
I also am confused with the view of the chicago skyline across lake Michigan a few pages back. Based on the curvature of the globe, a 'mirage' is not a good enough explanation for me as to how the buildings are visable at 60 miles. These guys have some good arguments, and alot of them based on curvature, horizon, vanishing point, perspective, height of view, and the weird stuff surrounding nasa and it's actions.
Click to expand...
Can you please define what you mean by mirage? I don't think it means what you think it means.

nutspecial said:
Also, while I might have your attention, is there any truth to moonlight actually having cooling properties, the opposite of sunlight? I plan to test this for myself, because it should be easy. If so, what are the optical/thermodynamic repercussions??
Click to expand...
Moonlight is not caused by the moon emitting light. You concede that the moon phases are caused by the sun and not the shadow of the earth, but you can't make the connection that the light you see from the moon is reflected sunlight? How do you plan to test whether moonlight can cool something? Again, a fundamental understanding of radiation (light) makes that question illogical - do you know of any shadows that produce light?
 
R3: Answer to first three lines from you: This seems to be where you think our difference lays, but empirical evidence, common sense, logic, is not fallacious by definitiion. To test the 'official' is to determine where improvement can happen and fallacies can be corrected. Is this a disagreement, or is science supposed to be the ever evolving understanding of things?

Answer line 4 and 5: It's fine to learn from all sources, but all things must be tested and questioned, not taken at face value as Truth.

6: Yes, the moon is 'locked'. It does not spin, other than around earth. It never spins from our perspective, just orbits. So why do people say it 'spins'? That's the point I was trying to make, besides the extended question of how it also tracks the stars visually perfectly each night. http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/docs/MoonRotate.pdf
I also thought maybe lfp might know if the planets act the same, as a line of reasoning to underline my 'answer'
to his question.

7: Sorry not going there, you should learn about 'mirages' and see if they fit in that instance. It's a very interesting subject, such is 'gravity'. A big can of worms.

8/last: Did I say here that the moon is self illuminating? . . . . although . . . . :D
Anyway, it's a simple experiment- measure temp in moonlight, and in it's shadow. Easy to do a simple controlled repeatable experiment. If the light is cooling, that's pretty damn interesting imo. I know of only certain lasers being able to cool http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/lascool.html A very interesting topic. One could take a 3rd step in the experiment, and attempt to measure magnified moonlight as well. Will it be cooler yet?

Thanks for the discussion, BUT, I felt my questions were posed fine for easy answers, although I can understand if you're not grasping my angle or thoughts, thus your questions. Hopefully you have the answers you sought!
Peace
 
This is again your misunderstanding of scientific theory.
You are questioning hundreds of scientist's repeated results over hundreds of years (theory) based on a guy from YouTube (hypothesis). You should be questioning the hypothesis against the theory.

It's fine to learn from all sources but not all sources are of equal merit and context. Something like the theory of evolution is not just one guys claim.

Again, the moon does spin. It spins at nearly the same rate as it orbits the planet...just like it says in the source you just so graciously linked. I'm not really sure why you don't trust anything NASA says, yet here you are using nasa.gov as evidence for you moon theory?

I asked you for your definition of a mirage because I have no idea what you're talking about when you say mirage. If you can't even define your suppositions then how can you base a claim on words you don't inderstand?

The light you see reflecting off the moon as 'moonlight' carries heat. It has to, it's light. It's origin is the sun...without sun, there is no moonlight, as per a lunar eclipse when the moon is shrouded in the earths shadow and only reflects the red refracted light from the sun that gets bent around the planet. The lit surface will also carry heat as it absorbes the light that's not reflected. On the opposite side in shadow, there is no source of light/heat to be absorbed, nor reflected - by definition of shadow. Thus there is less heat on the dark side than the lit side. Try it with a soccer ball on a sunny day!
Try some of those experiments in that nasa link!
 
[youtube]KX6mGq_SeEc[/youtube]
Here's a great (long) run down of ideas and fundamental knowledge. He's great at not only explaining the things we know as scientific consensus but why and how we know. It's got a lot of great real mysteries
 
Thanks for that r3, I'm sure it's interesting and will watch it when I get a chance. Lemme know if there's anything inparticular you want to discuss about it.

In the meantime, I've continued looking into 'flat earth' and it's def interesting. I see many claiming proof of flat earth, and many times I don't agree. Although 'proof' imo only belongs in alcohol and math anyway, it's interesting to see which way this 'movement' is going. There are ALOT of valid points, and I'm happy I found out about it.

The most interesting thing to happen perhaps in my lifetime, and at least most of the people mean well, and want awakening. And like I said (and have tried to point out in this thread), there are many valid points.

Thanks for humoring me at all fellas, it's been fun! Sorry if anyone got upset, but challenge yourself to new perspectives. Life is way too short not to.
 
I see what you're trying to say, but you're barking up the wrong tree because the conclusion is obviously false. Having a new perspective on this particular issue means gain a wrong perspective. There aren't a lot of valid points put forward by flat-earthers because they must be wrong, because the conclusion is wrong. They might have "interesting" points, that describe some unusual or counter-intuitive phenomenon, but even then it's a bit like knowing how a book ends before reading it - not matter how interesting the story, it's kinda pointless.

The Earth is (approximately) spherical. Anything else is dicking around with pseudo-science and amateur philosophy. That's fine if that's what interests someone, but it has to be acknowledged that's all it is.
 
I can't find a curve anywhere. Do the math!

The moon has very different properties than the sun too, another empirical factoid. Gravity and relativity in no way explain this, neither does thermodynamics as far as I know.

These and so many more things I've linked in this thread. If you don't wanto look at them, or consider you (or science) might not kno something, then so be it, your loss imo. And also a great travesty imo.
 
nutspecial said:
I can't find a curve anywhere. Do the math!

The moon has very different properties than the sun too, another empirical factoid. Gravity and relativity in no way explain this, neither does thermodynamics as far as I know.
Click to expand...

This is the technical equivalent of word salad.

It seems there's no reasoning with you.
 
nutspecial said:
I can't find a curve anywhere. Do the math!

The moon has very different properties than the sun too, another empirical factoid. Gravity and relativity in no way explain this, neither does thermodynamics as far as I know.

These and so many more things I've linked in this thread. If you don't wanto look at them, or consider you (or science) might not kno something, then so be it, your loss imo. And also a great travesty imo.
Click to expand...


What is your game here? To waste others time? Common troll with the skills to build a bike?
Great, you found a group of people that care about science and are open and willing to share. Teach you even.
You disregard everything suggested and come across as offended by us for not buying into your bullshit.

Your signature,
my 'build': bht parallel midrive. lb=66. 6=kw http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewto ... =6&t=69319

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

Do not confuse your "questioning" with doubts. The one whom comes across most certain in your posts, is you!
image.jpg

While I vent a lil here let me bring up a couple other things.
First your command of the English language is odd. Is it your native tongue?
Your posts are filled with sentences that often do not make sense to the topic, to common order of words, to me and I assume everyone else.
Second, you come across as a proper nutter I think the English say.
Are you on drugs? Street drugs. Psychedelics? Bath salt?
Are you mentally ill? Medicated?
Having done large amounts of various street drugs and a myriad of prescribed head meds, I am diagnosed Bi-Polar, I can understand the loose grip on reality you may be suffering right now. I can also sympathize with your desire for better understanding of the world around you, but not having the education to truly grasp reality.
Talk to someone if you can. It's for the best.
 
I can understand your perspective, although the part about the english language and whatnot is slightly amusing.
The rest, I can tell you're serious, and I'm sorry for your apparent bewilderness.
I am serious too. And no Brentis, I'm not on drugs, and am a 'contributing successful member of society' (<weasel phrase alert). I don't condemn or condone 'drugs', but that is another topic.

I typed up a long response, but I am afraid it is for naut/deaf ears (not you inparticular, the whole venue in general), so I'll just say this:

Read the op, along with 'disclaimer', and if you still wanna, watch the approx 1/2hr of embedded content. Anyone that can do so with a unobjectified view should come away with a better understanding of the world we all share, or at least something really interesting to think about. Good luck in whatever your quest is, don't let other beliefs/faiths/religions/etc bother you. And IMO attempting to understand them will only underline why.

Ps, I made an openended request to adm/mods for this thread to be considered for toxic.
I will talk about anything with strangers I meet, and believe openness and honesty is something the world needs, but that isn't always the best reflection on the venue, and I don't want Admin to think I'm ungrateful for this great site and the people here.

Peace, (and when I say that, I mean it!)
Peaceful.jpg
 
liveforphysics said:
I have a telescope I use to look at other near planets.
Click to expand...

And if you have a friend far enough away with another telescope, you can figure out how far those stars/planets are from us.

They're very, very far away.
 
nutspecial said:
I can understand your perspective, although the part about the english language and whatnot is slightly amusing.
The rest, I can tell you're serious, and I'm sorry for your apparent bewilderness.
I am serious too. And no Brentis, I'm not on drugs, and am a 'contributing successful member of society' (<weasel phrase alert). I don't condemn or condone 'drugs', but that is another topic.

I typed up a long response, but I am afraid it is for naut/deaf ears (not you inparticular, the whole venue in general), so I'll just say this:

Read the op, along with 'disclaimer', and if you still wanna, watch the approx 1/2hr of embedded content. Anyone that can do so with a unobjectified view should come away with a better understanding of the world we all share, or at least something really interesting to think about. Good luck in whatever your quest is, don't let other beliefs/faiths/religions/etc bother you. And IMO attempting to understand them will only underline why.

Ps, I made an openended request to adm/mods for this thread to be considered for toxic.
I will talk about anything with strangers I meet, and believe openness and honesty is something the world needs, but that isn't always the best reflection on the venue, and I don't want Admin to think I'm ungrateful for this great site and the people here.

Peace, (and when I say that, I mean it!)
Click to expand...

I think that any thread you create that doesn't directly involve electric vehicle technology, should be posted in toxic.
What does the Flat earth or the cooling moon have to do with General ebike discussion?

Edit
Looks like our wish came true. Toxic where it belongs.
 
Yup, I suppose anything that might be controversial should be here anyway.
FYI I originally started it in 'general discussion' not 'ebike general discussion', same as 'moon and light' thread.

Does anyone here believe man has been on the moon? I've been looking at evidence contrary to manned moonlanding for years, so this 'earth flat' idea was right up my alley I guess, and actually clicks with alot of things. I'm willing to consider that space, stars, wandering stars (planets), etc are not at all what we've been told. Perhaps we don't have the ability to get anything out into 'space' where we can travel between heavenly bodies.

It's not a new idea, Robottem wrote a book in the late 1800's called 'zetetic' something or other, and until around 1500ad and copericus, newton, etc, most of recorded history (5500 years) thought the same. People are realizing today that we don't need gravity, relativity, and astrophysics and that all three are based on conjecture, opposite of scientific theory. If you believe nasa, all this seems absolutely stupid, but if we are being bamboozled by them, it all clicks into place. I personally think 'flat earth clues' by mark sargent are the best to start with (op), but here's some stuff more specific to the moon and space. I'm will to say I question all these things until they can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[youtube]npxAxglUnKI[/youtube]
[youtube]Xt0RW6qMbLw[/youtube]
[youtube]gYQLV9kHtQM[/youtube]

Beware that some modern day 'Science' is not a religion you've been tricked into believing. It's beginning to look that way to me.
 
One of the first points used to argue that planets are spherical as opposed to round/flat/discs...the invention of the telescope allowed observers to watch the phases of Venus, and it was thought that sunlight and shadow would affect a flat disc differently than a sphere...and I still agree with that assessment.
 
Hi spinningmagnets, I don't know if they're spheres or discs. I started searching for information on that (that isn't nasa cgi, and yes, if you didn't know, at least 99% of their stuff is).

I came across this 'amateur' atronomer's channel. Crow777. What do you, or other people think of this? I think it's very applicable. Skip to 5:30 if nasa's rockets and lunar 'waves' don't interest you.
[youtube]DAPDbpkquOQ[/youtube]

I'll leave you with this, absolutely real timelapse footage, and go figure, it's from earth and a telescope. So beautiful, so profound. Don't let nasa's bullshit and cgi cheapen our world and the 'heavens'.

[youtube]wFpeM3fxJoQ[/youtube]
 
nutspecial said:
Hi spinningmagnets, I don't know if they're spheres or discs. I started searching for information on that (that isn't nasa cgi, and yes, if you didn't know, at least 99% of their stuff is).

I came across this 'amateur' atronomer's channel. Crow777. What do you, or other people think of this? I think it's very applicable. Skip to 5:30 if nasa's rockets and lunar 'waves' don't interest you.
[youtube]DAPDbpkquOQ[/youtube]

I'll leave you with this, absolutely real timelapse footage, and go figure, it's from earth and a telescope. So beautiful, so profound. Don't let nasa's bullshit and cgi cheapen our world and the 'heavens'.

[youtube]wFpeM3fxJoQ[/youtube]
Click to expand...


You really are something.
At least 99% of NASA "stuff" is cgi? Have proof of that? Or just more of your observations?
How do you know that "absolutely real timelapse footage" is real? Did you take it? Or again, just your observation?
 
More interesting question - if the world was suddenly proven to be flat, would you start a new thread trying to prove the world is a sphere to maintain your fringe belief structure?

endless-circle.com

Have you ever read any of Newton's books?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetica_Universalis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_motu_corporum_in_gyrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_Fluxions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opticks

I'm assuming you've never even heard of any of these since you don't know why and how science comes to consensus.
 
Brentis, Nasa admits it man. Combine the lack of real footage from space, with the bullshit surround the apollo missions. If you look into it, you can proove it to yourself.

R3, it takes balls to stay the course, trying to help me see the error in my ways. Have the balls to look into the things I've mentioned and you've skipped. If you don't allow revelation to have a negative impact on you (anger fear etc), you will be very happy you did.

I would rather understand my real place in this world, rather than shy away and ignore things I have always questioned deep down. It's very freeing to understand more of our true nature, and the world that surrounds us.

Like anything, just use the the best version of yourself (conscience etc) for the lense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top