Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!
A clear demonstration of a very "scientific" approach from you indeed. ;O
Thanks for your demonstration of showing me how to behave like a civilised individual.
Listen here Taku, unlike lurker_01 who I find to be reasonable, if a bit condescending, YOU are a fanatical ill mannered annoyance and I will not be replying to your blatantly inflammatory posts with anything more than derisive snipes. If IF, I choose to read the verbose drivel you post at all.
The issue I have with calling anything truth/fact are that it's automatically regarded as indisputable, proven, true/correct, and I get that religion is close-minded, but the level of close-mindedness really depends more on the individual than any organisation or philosophy to which they subcribe. I have found more close-mindedness from Materialists (who think it's a science even though Materialism is actually a philosophy that masquerades as a science) than I have from the younger-generations of truth-seeking religion-subscribers. This, once more, has more to do with the individual. The reason I can have a "respectable debate" with religious people or self-professing Christians at the least is because I come across Christians who
allow themselves to learn something new, I "open" them into accepting information "outside the bible" when I point to John 21:25, because all of the books in the world is certainly a lot of information, and therefore, much would not have been recorded, and therefore does not automatically make it invalid, solely due to not having been written in what they regard as scriptures. They end up acting more scientific to me because of their then willingness to update their paradigm to match the evidence rather than the materialists who act more religious to me because of their mental-gymnastics into trying to force any kind of evidence to fit into their paradigm. More on this later...
Regarding the Legal-System, I know plenty about the legal-system, and the entire thing is fraudulent, I could write entire books and essays about its scams by now, but you can look it up on the listings for yourself to see that The United States is a Corporation...
[00m47s]
You must be registered to see the links
(Indisputable Proof that The United States [Supreme Court] is a For-Profit Corporation)
P.S. United States Citizen ≠ American (not in Legalese-Language)
Here's a few differences:
1. If "Truth" is defined as a complete impression and understanding of a given subject which is inerrant, then science doesn't have a concept of truth, it doesn't allow for it. Religion very much does, however (as do legal systems, and legal systems tend to define truth as a preponderance of evidence).
That is only when it is objective. Many people confuse fact with opinion and the other way around. A time even once existed where in the Legal-System, Subjective and Objective had completely opposite definitions from the Merriam/Webster's dictionary, but in the Legal-System, the words do NOT mean the same thing as how you would use them in common-language, such as discussing things with regular people out on the streets.
2. A "fact" is an observable, and repeatably observable phenomenon. It's not the same as truth.
This only works when one individually "decides to take the beam out of their own eye in order to be able to see clearly before trying to correct another" for dogmatism is not limited to any particular philosophy or group or organisation. A REAL problem surfaces when any dogmatic person/individual/group/organisation/corporation has control over what kind of information is allowed to exist or not. Some of you are probably not old enough to have witnessed this for yourself, but information about many important topics are quickly suppressed or full of dis-information and data-manipulation, and it's becoming glaringly obvious enough to enough people that there have even been TED-Talks addressing the issue that you can view for yourself from
this presentation...
[10m36s]
You must be registered to see the links
(Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada)
3. The "updating" feature that you quickly mentioned is in fact a fundamental function of the scientific method, and works to specifically root out dogmas.
A lot of beliefs have remained for a long time, were not challenged for a long time, and eventually proven to be dogmas that wrote off new evidence, attempting to force any surfacing evidence to fit a paradigm, rather than updating the paradigm to fit the evidence. I already provided a list of examples, from the existence of falling rocks/meteors/meteorites, blood-letting versus germs/viruses, all the way to plate-tektonics and geo-centric to helio-centric models, heavier-than-air flying machines, and plenty more, and this is not a new phenomenon, for it still happens to this very day.
4. Just because a fact has remained for a long time and is solidly tested, doesn't mean that you can just write it off as dogma if you happen to not like it.
Within the "Legal-System" I will not "Understand" the "Charges" because I
know its
real definition. Science allows you to question things. Dogmas immediately lambast you for "questioning established" models of so-called reality. Also, the world's top physicists have found themselves forced into becoming philosophers, who have no other choice left but to question their "learned" realities, that they were once taught in schools. The "Big Bang" Theory only happens to be the "most promoted" theory (usually the only one promoted in schools), but there are plenty of other theories that "compete" with the Big Bang, from "scientists" and "phycisists"
themselves,
some that are presented
here...
[05m54s]
You must be registered to see the links
(The 10 CRAZIEST Scientific Theories About EXISTENCE!)
I'm sorry, but based on my conversations with you, I can only conclude that you don't understand science, as you have so far only presented a caricated impression of it. And indeed seem to be hell-bent on doing so.
Dean Radin has continued with a precognition-experiment that originally started out of Sweden in the 1970s (I think that was the year according to documentation), what he calls Presentiment, and this phenomenon has been observed and repeatable, even within "skeptic" labs, with consistent results. The way it works is that electrodes are connected to the subject's skin to measure their polygraph response, a wide selection of randomised images are randomly displayed at random intervals on the screen for them to view, and the polygraph-measurements follow the expected stress-levels of the type of image being displayed. Calm for calm, stress-response for high-emotion image-captures, etc. Originally, the subject in the original experiment saw no big deal, because that would be expected, but she was asked to take a closer look at the measured time-lines, and found that it recorded that her polygraph-responses occurred a few seconds
before each image was even displayed.
That is not to say that there aren't plenty of quacks and snake-oil salesmen and charlatans, such as Peter Popoff, but he's already promoted enough that I shouldn't need to link or reference clips of Randi exposing Popoff (I am not ignorant of the "facts" regarding the field of parapsychology).
Discussions on the para-normal frequently, almost universally feature non-falsifiable, non-repeatable claims and as such fall outside the purview of science, except where they directly go counter to established observations, and in those instances, the only answer is to base our views on the established observations until further observations are offered.
His statements were not "pulled out of his ass" but is information that he has "relayed" from "witnesses" and "government employees" who gave their answers from interviews, for which Dr. Steven Greer has conducted literally thousands of interviews, and he's also the Founder of CSETI. Perhaps today's "astronomy" courses don't make mention of him, BUT they DO talk about CSETI and NASA a LOT within their text-books (I should know as I have gone through academic-astronomy before), and Greer is THE "founder" of CSETI, although that is not to say that the "witnesses" (Dr. Steven Greer : "...according to Neil Armstrong..." [yes this is a real quote from him]), may not necessarily have been brain-washed, mind-controlled, put under hypnosis to respond with a false-reality than what actually happened, should they be presented with any "interview" scenario, etc. Many a "False-Memory Syndrome" gets used as a "tactic" for "discrediting" various individuals.
How would one even go about calculating the likelihood of that? The man is pulling this out of his proverbial ass. He's a medical doctor his doctorate is irrelevant.
Plenty of sources exist that are "skeptical" about those who call themselves "skeptics" such as
You must be registered to see the links
and there are now growing numbers of sources that are dedicated to resisting against "pseudo-skepticism" that tends to run rampant from many a sock-puppet, and speaking of sock-puppets, dis-info operations are an actual thing...
[04m37s]
You must be registered to see the links
(Affidavit of Sock-Puppet Shills)
It's hilarious that these people call themselves "skeptics" when they swallow up whole rumours about UFOs and extraterrestrials with little hint of actual skepticism.
This is all just speculation, and isn't worth serious consideration. I could be speculating that there is a bucket of sand floating on the far side of the Moon, and no one could prove me wrong, but that doesn't mean my claim holds any merit.
Fact is something that I leave to the realm of mathematics. Everything else I will call a theory, because you don't always know if some variable may come along to suddenly cause a repeatable phenomenon to suddenly change. Furthermore, just because something cannot be observed on a daily basis, does not automatically make it non-existent/impossible/false/etc. Comets cannot be observed in the sky by everybody every day, but they have been seen, nor do we observe meteors or meteorites hitting the earth every day, but the French Academy of Sciences a few centuries ago was forced to retract their "fact" that rocks cannot fall from the sky, due to a lack of observation/evidence until that day happened where one actually landed and hit near their academy.
Facts and theories are not the same thing. A fact is a repeatably observable phenomenon, a theory is an explanatory model for said fact which has stood tests of falsification repeatedly.
-----------------------------------
I have a few things we could expect if the Earth was flat:
1. Ships would not disappear behind the horison of the sea with the bottom disappearing first, and would eventually just disappear in a haze.
This has already been filmed with long-range telescopes. Ships are shown to still be visible even at 600 miles away instead of disappearing below a horizon. You can pull up videos of this footage for yourself (granted, I have not personally done this experiment yet for myself, but I know it's an existing claim that I can at least
test for
myself for purposes of being "scientific"). Consider that the width of Australia is approximately 4000 kilometres (that is close to 2500 miles). 600 miles is 1/4th the distance across Australia (East-West). Certainly, you would expect to see a curvature, but there are plenty of currently uploaded videos that show this does not happen (I cannot claim that I have tested this personally for myself yet, for I no longer live amongst the coastal-areas, but I have business-contacts who have the resources who can test/film this with time-lapse video so that we can
confirm it for
ourselves).
I have not educated myself on this enough yet to comment, but Flat-Earthers have provided evidence that the "rays" of the sun spread out such that they are able to form triangular-shapes from the clouds down to the surface, putting to question as to whether the distance to the sun is really 93.3 million miles away, suspecting that it's much closer (they give calculations of approximating it to something like 3000 miles off). I am not entirely convinced of Flat-Earth explanations of sun-sets at this time, for sun-sets do appear to be more of sphere-o-centric phenomenon, but the distance to the sun is put to question because of sun-rays not always shining "parallel" through the clouds (what would be the "expected" pattern from a light-source of such a distance).
2. The sun, being higher than any mountain and therefore not subject to the "brink mechanic" (whereby tall objects hide shorter/lower objects behind them) would never set. Neither would the moon. If it is close enough to be hidden behind mountains due to angular change, then it should change apparent size throughout the day.
A new mechanism ? For gravity, the theory has been put forth from the F-E side that it's more like a form of electro-magnetics, and I think that they might be onto something in that regards, but it would have to be a different type of field that is not limited to metallic attraction/repulsion. Perhaps more of a multi-organic field-attractor if you may. The models of how Sun/Moon would move on a Flat-Earth Plane have already been posted here, but as for whether I am personally convinced, I still have plenty of questions myself (enough that I am forced to question BOTH models of spherical and flat-earth models do to various inconsistencies that I have seen from both models).
3. If the Earth was flat, a new mechanism would be needed to explain the movement of the sun and moon, which would be needed to a) counteract gravity, and b) supercede Newtonian physics. What would this be?
Regarding travel-times and distances, various researchers of the Flat-Earth movement have actually taken information from flight-paths and flight-times, related to one route or another, and have claimed that the flight-times do not match the flight-distances of a globe-model, but allegedly match perfectly on a flat-earth map. Furthermore, some distances are regarded as much shorter, faster, and efficient to simply fly over Antarctica to the next country, for which absolutely no flight does, and probably not for any going across the North-Pole either. I wish I had access to ways to be able to test/measure this for myself.
4. Provided that Antarctica was the outer wall of the world, sailing around it would take significantly longer and represent a significantly longer distance than on a spherical Earth.
5. Provided that Antarctica was the outer wall of the world, distances between continents on the Southern Hemisphere would be significantly longer than on a spherical Earth.
Much as I would like to trust Wikipedia as a good, scientific-reference, its information is heavily controlled. Perhaps not necessarily for the subject of astronomy, but as the Astroturf TED-Talk described, Wikipedia is a source of which I will need to remain skeptical. Also, the transits can still be modeled even on a Flat-Earth map, and some sources have already explained that the "planets" are simply called planets (but are regarded as stars) according to Flat-Earth researchers (or perhaps shills), only in that they simply move differently from the rest of the stars/constellations. They are regarded as having their own movement-patterns (working models could be made for both the flat
and sphere-earth, actually, depending upon the type of the "mathematical-formula" that one decides to use/concoct/invent/re-calculate/etc). Mathematically, the sun-rays should shine parallel through the clouds from a distance of 93.3 million miles away, but Geometry used by Flat-Earth Researchers have led them to believe that it's most-likely 3000 miles in distance (thus, I have to conclude, that either one or both models are incorrect, something exists about reality that neither NASA nor Flat-Earth Researchers have discovered, another type of math may yet remain undiscovered, some combination of the aforementioned, etc).
6. The transits of
You must be registered to see the links
and
You must be registered to see the links
would be impossible, unless they either a) existed in a lower orbit than the Sun, or b) had erratic orbit, both of which would be observable through common telescopes.
Some people regard the moon to be a giant hologram. Before I comment further on the moon, I will go back to the idea of the sun for a bit, and its sun-sets. Flat-Earth Theory has postulated that it's about perspective, thus resulting in the appearance of sinking below a distant horizon (although some Globe-Earthers have commented that the Sun should then still be visible if viewing from the top of a mountain even after it's set for everybody else), and a Globe-Earther commented "That's what I think too; more so from the flat-earth model the sun should appear to go many times faster during noon that during sunset and dawn, it don't seem to be the case." with a link to a video of the sun setting from Hawai'i...
[00m51s]
You must be registered to see the links
Except a claim was made that the Sun should be moving faster at noon than mornings/evenings. Actually, I have not personally tried to time-lapse/observe the accuracy of this statement yet, but I think I have the resources/equipment available/accessible for me to be able to time-lapse and measure/time the validity of the speed of the sun across the sky for myself. Also, a light-source is not always going to remain visible, just because it's within line-of-sight. I certainly would not be able to see the light form someone's flash-light from 20 miles away and, when traveling on the road, I cannot see someone's high-beam-head-lights when they are 300 miles off in the distance. The sun could still be within line-of-sight but not visible due to its light not emitting that damn far.
For the moon, I, personally do not have an explanation for moon-phases. For the current explanations, actually, I have seen footage and made personal-observations of both the sun and the moon being in the sky simultaneously, with the phases/shadows of the moon putting the current models/explanation to question. The only thing that would account for such anomalies would be a very complicated type of light-refraction. I know that experiments or even elements on earth within an atmosphere do not necessarily always have the same results when tested, how chemicals may react on earth may not necessarily interact the same way in outer-space, therefore I am suspecting that current science/physics/flat-earth/theories/experiments/explanations/etc., may still as of yet remain incomplete. I am open-minded to new evidence, that lets me update my paradigm based on the available evidence, but I prefer to be able to collect that evidence through my own experiments/testing/observations.
7. A new explanation for the phases of the Moon would have to be found, as the current explanation posits that the shadow of the Earth is cast on the Moon. This would be impossible in a scenario in which the sun and moon are both hovering above a plane.
Finally... I am just going to end with this clip...
[16m18s]
You must be registered to see the links
(Former Globe-Earther explains some of the reasons for his transition into Flat-Earther)
...with comments about how, before more recent astronomy, what used to be taught was that craft must be able to withstand extreme heat through the outer-atmosphere of earth as they would otherwise burn up within that layer of the atmosphere before being able to penetrate into outer-space. Forgot what it was called, but anyway, that used to be a huge issue that was talked about in the past, but now all of these countries (ahem, I mean, corporations), apparently like to send up things like satellites and so-forth left and right like the burning of the atmosphere is now a non-issue (not even discussed). From here, I was thinking, but gee, what about all of those satellite-images of earth where I can even see my house from Google-Maps ? (Considering the information available from
You must be registered to see the links
) Then I took a closer look, noticing how "detailed" the buildings were, such that these images could have easily have been captured from helicopters/drones, etc., that did a land-sweep/survey of the land-scape, and from there it's not that difficult to conclude that you can "collage" those images together, without actually going any further up in order to present the "appearance" that you have a photograph/picture/image from much farther away, when it's very more-likely to be a lot of high-resolution images that have been condensed into a much smaller image to give the illusion of having been captured from low-earth-orbit or beyond.
Once society improves, such that everybody can afford to do their own experiments for themselves, then the explanations for "reality" can be laid to rest as the entire world then has enough resources of their own to be able to co-operate in order to bring forth the best-possible evidence for accurate astronomy. Let me make another closing statement, that
more-than-enough resources exist to eliminate poverty and homelessness, consider how "trillions" get spent on so-called "foreign-aide" that can
easily feed every last person and provide at least a small house for
everybody in America (and, for your information, the so-called foreign-aide money does not go to those countries, but rather, towards the corporations that build corporate-serving infrastructure, and serves little to benefit those countries
themselves [banker-controlled world, and if you're still uninformed on this, start researching anything that quotes : "Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws."]). I accept any and all new evidence because it lets me get a better understand of why people come to their beliefs (even if I do not necessarily decide to adhere to the same belief).
