The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

just got this in my ratings comments;

"While i agree with you, you's attitude doesn't help in this situation, i guess the entire europe/world population had problems when they pyred the round believers in medieval ages..."

you realize my post was talking about people TODAY, in the year 2016, right? why on earth would I say that people back in the medieval ages were idiots for believing this when we didn't have the technology to confirm it back then?

I didn't want to comment because "don't need to give people who believe this any more attention"
now since you want to talk i guess i have to explain that this is exactly why "legitimately has some serious problems" is ridiculous..
There were people like

You must be registered to see the links

and other people at medieval ages who were saying that earth was round. if they were making these bold claims i am sure they had technology to support them.
Please know some history before responding and/or then admit that scientists of this age were spelling gibberish because they didn't have the technology as you claimed
(i.e. the new system was adopted about 10 years after his publication)

I guess my point is that they had technology to confirm it and for people it took a while to change and you may as well say they were "[having] some serious problems"

Now for people today for my perspective what you can say totally depends on society and you's surroundings, since you say that people that believe that earth is flat don't have any proof and therefore have some mental issues(i am sorry if i understood you wrong) i want to apply this concept to all religions (no proof of god existence,etc) and see how this approach will work.

edit: I hope you understand why i have a problem with this "carpet bombing" approach.

 

[HentaiWriter]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

You must be registered to see the links

and other people at medieval ages who were saying that earth was round. if they were making these bold claims i am sure they had technology to support them.

Yes, HE had the technology to support it, the average citizen did not, and 90% of the population certainly would not believe his wild claims due to religion and a whole host of other "knowledge" at the time going against it.

Hence, why it should have been implicated/assumed that (again) I was talking about people in the year 2016 with my original statement, and with my next statement, that "not having the technology to confirm it" = you can't go pick up a book or a telescope or etc. to just insta-confirm this stuff because it wasn't public or mainstream knowledge back then, nor was the technology widely available or even understood back then either.

Please know some history before responding and/or then admit that scientists of this age were spelling gibberish because they didn't have the technology as you claimed

What are you even saying here? It sounds like you're literally refuting your earlier point you just made.

If I were "admitting" something, that means that I was taking back/changing what I said, but what you wrote down literally destroys your own point, because if I were to "admit" that (ergo, agree with your view of events) then that means that you would be stating that scientists didn't even have the technology AT ALL back then to figure this stuff out.

I guess my point is that they had technology to confirm it and for people it took a while to change and you may as well say they were "[having] some serious problems"

The reason why it took a while to change is because religion and other factors were extremely prevalent in that time period, to the point that they wouldn't dare agree with or not question anything that challenged religious or "common knowledge" doctrines. This isn't a factor in today's world.

Not going to respond in this thread any longer, the fact it even exists is ridiculous, lmao

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Copernicus had nothing to do with the Earth being round. He was arguing with the Church over whether the Sun or the Earth was the center of the solar system. That's completely different.

It was already established knowledge among the higher social classes that the Earth was round by then. No one got burnt at the stake for saying the Earth was round.

I'm not even sure why you guys are arguing over this.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

I'm pretty confused by the jab at religion here, you do realize that faith =/= facts or evidence and in fact is a belief held in absence of those very things.

 

[HentaiWriter]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

As people get pretty pissed about religious stuff, I had to clarify my position and post one last time in this thread;

Copernicus had nothing to do with the Earth being round. He was arguing with the Church over whether the Sun or the Earth was the center of the solar system. That's completely different.

It was already established knowledge among the higher social classes that the Earth was round by then. No one got burnt at the stake for saying the Earth was round.

I'm not even sure why you guys are arguing over this.

That's my bad then. My point still stands though that my original post was meant for people in the year 2016, not people centuries ago.

I'm not sure why my original post was misconstrued so heavily by Lurker, either.

I'm pretty confused by the jab at religion here, you do realize that faith =/= facts or evidence and in fact is a belief held in absence of those very things.

It's fact that throughout history, some science, not ALL, has been rejected by various religions (not just Christianity, and not even primarily Christianity) for seemingly being too "radical" or challenging doctrine too much.

This wasn't a jab at religion, it's just stating historical fact; many religions all throughout the globe have had reactions from just mild irritation to outright "burning at the stake" type stuff when it comes to introducing science into the mainstream, or trying to challenge doctrine directly or indirectly with new scientific developments.

That said, many religions also have coveted or enriched certain aspects or fields of science, for sure, all throughout history, so it's not all just hate for science by any means.

Something as "world-changing" (no pun intended) though as the stuff that Copernicus and Galileo came up with though definitely would have blown quite a few people's minds, and some were accepting of it, and others... well, yeah.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

That was actually aimed at lurker. Sorry about that.

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Hence, why it should have been implicated/assumed that (again) I was talking about people in the year 2016 with my original statement, and with my next statement, that "not having the technology to confirm it" = you can't go pick up a book or a telescope or etc. to just insta-confirm this stuff because it wasn't public or mainstream knowledge back then, nor was the technology widely available or even understood back then either.

You can't insta-confirm stuff at our age neither, what technology should i use to do this? telescopes don't count for various reasons.
Mainstream knowledge doesn't too because i didn't "confirm" this myself.

If I were "admitting" something, that means that I was taking back/changing what I said, but what you wrote down literally destroys your own point, because if I were to "admit" that (ergo, agree with your view of events) then that means that you would be stating that scientists didn't even have the technology AT ALL back then to figure this stuff out.

Well you may do that, but this sends dangerous approach because that means the basic of our science is unbased and even if we can confirm it at our age this is just lucky coincidence then.

Copernicus had nothing to do with the Earth being round. He was arguing with the Church over whether the Sun or the Earth was the center of the solar system. That's completely different.

Yes, yet the flat theory doesn't work with Copernicus model and the actual model that is build from this.

It was already established knowledge among the higher social classes that the Earth was round by then. No one got burnt at the stake for saying the Earth was round.

Well by wikipedia we only know that earth have spherical shape only because we are "Converting GPS Height into Elevation with the Geoid Height Model" year 2007
I am honestly not sure why we still have to use "Models" if we 100% know our shape, might as well do the same with flat earth model and bring the evidence by "Converting GPS Height into Elevation with the Flat Height Model"
Also someone like Bruno was burn over furthering the Copernicus ideas (yes he did other things that religious people hated).

I'm not even sure why you guys are arguing over this.

Sometimes i want to ask them about that.

I'm pretty confused by the jab at religion here, you do realize that faith =/= facts or evidence and in fact is a belief held in absence of those very things.

Well considering the fact that i can't defend my position (because i am lazy,etc.) and everyone considers spherical earth to be 100% correct, i am as the one without proof and thus because i don't consider it spherical.
For you/someone/everyone i am the one that have ridiculous faith that is not spherical.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Yes, yet the flat theory doesn't work with Copernicus model and the actual model that is build from this.

That's probably true, as far as I know.

 

[Takumaru]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

The way science progresses is that the next generation grows up being familiar with all of the evidence and data, rather than trying to convince the "skeptics" that evidence exists for seemingly absurd claims, and I will list a few examples...

Previous Paradigm: "Rocks do not fall from the sky."
Previous Paradigm: "Sickness is due to blood-poisoning; the idea of invisible forces that the eye cannot see being the cause of disease is absurd!"
Previous Paradigm: "Continents are not floating."
Previous Paradigm: "Heavier-than-air devices do not fly."
Previous Paradigm: "Pictures do not move unless you're daydreaming."
Previous Paradigm: "You cannot communicate instantaneously at long distances, and to say that messages can be delivered without sending a courrier on a horse over such distances, well that it utterly ridiculous!"

I was tempted to put "skeptic" but decided that "previous paradigm" was probably the most "neutral" term I could use.

Few people realise just how "controversial" the ideas were, and I should even mention Mr. Ohm, because Ohm's Law was actually a posthumous work, not accepted until 20 years after he died, for which his "colleagues" actually griefed him a lot. This is nothing new. Many inventors throughout history were vilified during their time before their ideas/concepts became "main-stream" knowledge. Anyway, pursuant to the above quotes, I now list the "Changed Paradigm" Shifts...

Changed Paradigm: A meteorite fell near the French Academy of Sciences and as a result forced the "scientists" into redacting the "confirmed" statement that rocks do not or cannot fall from the sky.
Changed Paradigm: The "microscope" was "invented" and "proved" the existence of the "invisible forces that the eye cannot see" for which are termed as germs/viruses/bacteria/etc.
Changed Paradigm: Continental Drift
Changed Paradigm: The Wright Brothers (Heavier-Than-Air Flying Machines)
Changed Paradigm: The Television, Motion Pictures, etc.
Changed Paradigm: Radio Telegramming.

It's fact that throughout history, some science, not ALL, has been rejected by various religions (not just Christianity, and not even primarily Christianity) for seemingly being too "radical" or challenging doctrine too much.

This wasn't a jab at religion, it's just stating historical fact; many religions all throughout the globe have had reactions from just mild irritation to outright "burning at the stake" type stuff when it comes to introducing science into the mainstream, or trying to challenge doctrine directly or indirectly with new scientific developments.

That said, many religions also have coveted or enriched certain aspects or fields of science, for sure, all throughout history, so it's not all just hate for science by any means.

Something as "world-changing" (no pun intended) though as the stuff that Copernicus and Galileo came up with though definitely would have blown quite a few people's minds, and some were accepting of it, and others... well, yeah.

Regarding that "science" comment by a rather "snarky" poster, REAL science comes from QUESTIONING EVERYTHING, regardless of how "ridiculous" the question may seem, and also doing your OWN experiments. Unfortunately, much of so-called science has turned into a kind of a religion or dogmatic belief-system, and there is still no guarantee that the "tour" videos have not been blue-screened/green-screened, considering how many billions of dollars worth of budget available to NASA to pull that off (apparently, not everybody knows this, but literal video-editing software exists to where you can even make it literally look like your house got caught on fire, even burning all the way down to the ground, even though nothing actually happened to your house at all). I also made mention of Dr. Ruper Sheldrake for a reason, because you see, the "Speed of Light" having been suddenly "defined" one particular year as a "constant" and "consensus" deciding its value is not exactly very scientific, particularly when there have been other values that used to be in the academic school-books (depending on year of publication).

Let me make this clearer, because in scientific history, even the distance to the sun has had different values within the academic school-books OTHER than 93.3 million miles away (give or take some range of around 400 million miles altogether), and for those who do not "get" the implications of something "fundamental" like the Speed of Light values, even a SLIGHT change to the "consensus" number Speed-of-Light would mean that nearly ALL your "scientific beliefs" have to be thrown out the window (due to needing to RE-Calculate the Distance to the Sun, due to needing to RE-Calculate the Age of the Universe, due to needing to RE-Calculate a whole bunch of other measurements, and few people seem to question the reliability of so-called Carbon-Dating, but it's not as reliable as non-experimenters seem to want to believe, not for time-frames that exceed a few months anyway [Non-Experimenters: People who think that they are scientists or scientific, but get all knowledge about science from reading text, instead of actually getting their hands dirty and doing their own personal experiments themselves]).

Some urgent matters have come up recently so I will need to withdraw from too much more interaction as I quote from an important individual who wrote that...

for there is NO ‘time’ left for discussion or debate as to whether the world is ‘round or flat’ or ‘this or that.’

P.S.: Find some footage of satellites or the ISS from weather-balloons. Surely it cannot be impossible if the ISS is supposed to be visible from the ground with binoculars/telescopes.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

If you're not willing to defend your position, why are you bothering to post?

Religions that contain practices and beliefs that are detrimental to the health of practitioners and or non-practitioners are widely discredited and shunned, i.e. pretty much any suicide cult or religion that practices ritual sacrifice (I think we can all say that even if there are gods, they don't give a fuck what we kill, and aren't granting us anything special for doing it). Now assuming that you can admit that (Hypothetically for the moment) should it not be true the belief that the world is not spherical would be detrimental, can you see why it would not fall under the same protection that beneficial/harmless faith does?

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

If you're not willing to defend your position, why are you bothering to post?

I care about this but just not very much, but apparently people still need to jump and defend the idea that is mainstream, the worst part is that it takes long time to get reasonable material (and this issue is very low priority for me so i don't want to put time into this (mostly finding english sources), posting is easier).

Religions that are detrimental to the health are widely discredited and shunned. Now assuming the belief that the world is not spherical would be detrimental, can you see why it would not fall under the same protection that beneficial/harmless faith does?

Yes, i see the comparison, but how is this bad for my health or you's health?

 

[Pervy]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

I also struggle to believe this is an actual discussion here now, I thought this was a rational gathering of perverts! *chuckles*

I'd dare argue that the spread of any unscrutinized misinformation is a bad thing.. that includes the flat earth theory, like any other conspiracy theories. The proponents of these usually stand behind a wall of scepticism and inquiery, demanding to be granted exemption because if others in the past had not asked questions, we'd still stick with their prefered Flat Earth model.. hold on.. I think I noticed a hole in the logic righ there..

Anyone really after the truth would first and foremost question their own position and informations. Given modern technology, its laughably easy. It's also easy to find 'evidence' supporting a flat earth, .. if you look for it exclusively, and don't approach the topic with an open mind, but either your mind made up in favour of a Flat earth, or in disfavour of one or more disciplines of science.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

I care about this but just not very much, but apparently people still need to jump and defend the idea that is mainstream, the worst part is that it takes long time to get reasonable material (and this issue is very low priority for me so i don't want to put time into this (mostly finding english sources), posting is easier).


Yes, i see the comparison, but how is this bad for my health or you's health?

Well, it creates a dangerous precedent, for one. If you're taught to reject relatively well known and basic scientific facts, how much of a 'leap' is it believe that you can achieve unassisted flight? And if you reject science, then what are you going to believe? Your friends that tell you a girl can't get pregnant if you have sex in the shower while standing on your heads?

I'm exaggerating for effect of course, but when something so essential to our understanding of how the universe works comes into question due to belief, one must then infer that additional scientific information will be rejected. That then puts society at a whole in danger, because without that information how is anyone able to make safe, intelligent decisions?

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Well, it creates a dangerous precedent, for one. If you're taught to reject relatively well known and basic scientific facts

I am not taught that, if anything you believe the scientific facts until you know better because you were given new solid facts or did an experiment yourself using the scientific method. I may bring you some anecdotal evidence from various fields of our technology that would make various parts of the current overall industry obsolete and that some may break some scientific laws but i think this wouldn't help here. (although i will cite one next quote)

how much of a 'leap' is it believe that you can achieve unassisted flight? And if you reject science, then what are you going to believe? Your friends that tell you a girl can't get pregnant if you have sex in the shower while standing on your heads?

Well you really think that i just through "well this is good idea because stranger #1 said it" of course i checked and seen some solid facts that make you at least question the norms, if anything like i said, i just don't have good readily available english sources, and i don't believe that there will be a change because even if for example it was actually proven, what would you do with all people that had written their's PhD's on this or won novel prizes using/fundamenting the old system? if anything these people would defend their position no matter even if they were proven completely wrong. (do note they are the fundament of the current science because people are writing their own PhD's based on them.)
There is also a fact that the predecessor to nylon could sustain up to a weight of a car and wouldn't break, yet it takes almost nothing to break nylon.
"We" phased it out because it would last a lifetime and because there wouldn't be job for the factories to produce it, neither there would be big profits.
Considering the fact that we can't advance in some areas of science just by an imaginary block i don't believe we could progress in other areas with these big jumps too because "we" wouldn't be allowed to.

I'm exaggerating for effect of course, but when something so essential to our understanding of how the universe works comes into question due to belief, one must then infer that additional scientific information will be rejected. That then puts society at a whole in danger, because without that information how is anyone able to make safe, intelligent decisions?

Well considering that planes still fly right even on our current system i don't think that this information put the health in danger, yes it changes the perspective and the idealistic goal for the society as a whole but nothing more, honestly astronomic common knowledge doesn't affect the day by day life.

edit: I think i am on par with Takimaru reasoning for this.

 

[HentaiWriter]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

I am not taught that, if anything you believe the scientific facts until you know better because you were given new solid facts

please list the new solid facts that debunk the existing belief on the earth's shape

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

please list the new solid facts that debunk the existing belief on the earth's shape

We were talking about completely different thing...
About the facts... please read what i said like 4 times i am not interested to find quality facts in english, i don't have motivation for this, and i see that you don't want to research into it neither, so why bother after all?

Edit:
about some reps i am receiving:
for the going back on this conversation, i already said even on shoutbox i am done saying everything here already.
now for the one saying for spreading bullshit if you don't have facts, mind i said that i don't have English sources, if you want some russian videos i may give them for you but they probably would be worthless for you, my main message anyway was do you own research and don't dismiss it outright, but if people are not willing i am not forcing it and unfortunately i am sorry is not my task doing it for you (if you even wanted to), because people can't even lift a finger by going to wikipedia and cite as their source the earth page just to defend the roundness.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

I'm not here to attempt to convince you that Earth is spherical in shape. You are unwavering in your belief that it is not, making that endeavor a waste of both our time.

Remember, we're talking about the 'Hypothetical' situation in which the world is spherical, and why the belief that it is flat would not be covered under the same blanket of faith that beneficial/harmless religions are. I posit that it is AT BEST, mildly harmful misinformation that leads one toward far more radical rejections of commonly accepted scientific fact.

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Fine by me, but i never said that i would reject other scientific facts and you still haven't proven how this is harming for me if that would be true.
I get your concerns, but they are not necessary, thanks for the care.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Oh my no, I'm not concerned for you. Believe you can breathe underwater by putting a block of swiss cheese in your mouth for all I care. However, despite the fact that I'm not religious in any way, I find it offensive when people liken any radical belief to faith, as if it somehow immunizes said belief to question or ridicule.

As for proof that misinformation is harmful, I think slavery works quite well. The belief that colored people were somehow less human still damages global society today, long after the majority of our population has acknowledged the truth.

 

[Lurker_01]

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Oh my no, I'm not concerned for you. Believe you can breathe underwater by putting a block of swiss cheese in your mouth for all I care.

Thankfully i am rational to think this wouldn't work.

However, despite the fact that I'm not religious in any way, I find it offensive when people liken any radical belief to faith, as if it somehow immunizes said belief to question or ridicule.

I admit that this was more radical that i liked but comparing to religion did a good example of why you probably shouldn't say "everyone"
Now i never said that based on this i would dismiss any questions nor i am saying that this is the best truth, feel free to ask but i probably won't be able to respond with nothing more that my own words.

As for proof that misinformation is harmful, I think slavery works quite well. The belief that colored people were somehow less human still damages global society today, long after the majority of our population has acknowledged the truth.

I think we are at stage where white people are already getting harmed by this more that colored one's, anyway you never said particularly how this possible misinformation would be harmful.

edit:
about the rep for this post:
I am fine with your think but this means i can say same thing for you, i find everyone equal and yet i disagree with quotas, if you want a discussion about it feel free to pm. I am very sorry i deeply offended you...