What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[Mal7]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Mal7, I really hope this reply is aligned to your message because at the moment your argument appears to be supporting relativistic thinking as a way of leveling the field of discussion, giving an impression that more weight can't be given to any side. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
[. . .]
Today, a lot of advanced scientific thinkers, whether this thinking is of the loose but lucid or the rigorous and righteous type, agree that "provisional truth" is one of our most important and valuable tools in science. Thing is, we must, if we have integrity, always associate the two words 'provisional' and 'truth'. The word 'provisional' acknowledges that the fullness and actuality of any evolutionary progression is indeterminate. It also acknowledges our finite intellect.

An understanding of 'provisional truth' has always seemed to be a theme running through investigations of statements from the C's up to present. And since Laura has taken the lead in the claims examination phase of this thread's topic, may we not continue to assume it will apply here as well?

I think 'provisional truth' means much the same as my own wording "best working hypothesis", so that we may be in agreement here. I am not advocating complete relativism of knowledge, but a middle way between complete relativism, and something that sees science as a process of producing non-provisional truths. I think Feyerabend's theories on the whole err in being too relativistic, but that he has some useful insights.

 

[Buddy]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Ok, thanks for the clarification!!

 

[Mal7]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

And perhaps I might be feeling triggered at the idea that people may be using the same kind of reasoning to advocate a spherical earth, as is used by the global warming advocates to dismiss climate change skeptics, e.g. there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring, scientists are never wrong. I think the philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn make a very good case that science does not progress through consensus. But this is now getting off the thread topic into a meta-discussion. . .

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That's a circular reasoning and leads nowhere. How does the earth looks like in a 6.3 dimensions space-time with some bizarre metric? Though it might be fun to think about, our shared framework of experience is that of a three dimensional space frame with an arrow of time, that's where we live, learn and die. Speculation for the sake of speculation is as a waste of time as arguing for the sake of arguing, if there is no definite purpose towards a growth of understanding, knowledge, and consciousness. The flat vs. round earth pseudo-debate is defined within the framework of Euclidian geometry. When one poses a problem, one explicitly, and sometimes implicitly as in this case, defines the framework of the debate. Our common experience of earth is flat on short distances, like when one walks to the next shop, and round when one travels on long distances or explains and predicts 3d everyday experiences on this planet.
The problem here is whether it is worth spending time (humans are mortal etc) and energy in some wild speculation ad ignorantiam (in order to debunk a proposition, one must first understand it, which is not the case of the flat-earthers). Making a comparison with the Global Warming propaganda is also fallacious. Global Warming is debunked not because of belief and unsubstantiated speculation, but because there are theoretical and observational evidence that take root in what we know about paleoclimate, thermodynamics, data analysis, and in a word plain old physics.
I don't recall intellectual onanism and rhetoric sophistry being part of the 4th way.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Global Warming is debunked not because of belief and unsubstantiated speculation, but because there are theoretical and observational evidence that take root in what we know about paleoclimate, thermodynamics, data analysis, and in a word plain old physics.

You find no merit in the ideas of Imre Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend? You cannot imagine that once the Church could have decreed that there was theoretical and observational evidence that the earth was at the centre of the universe? The flat earth idea is ridiculous, but we have strayed into talking about principles for understanding what science is here. Maybe that is an even better use of time than debating one by one the points of the flat earth arguments?

I don't recall intellectual onanism and rhetoric sophistry being part of the 4th way.

Seems a bit harsh. I think maybe this Forum is not a good fit for me. I will mind the door on my way out. :)

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

You find no merit in the ideas of Imre Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend? You cannot imagine that once the Church could have decreed that there was theoretical and observational evidence that the earth was at the centre of the universe? The flat earth idea is ridiculous, but we have strayed into talking about principles for understanding what science is here. Maybe that is an even better use of time than debating one by one the points of the flat earth arguments?

Failing to see the connection to what had been written before. So, short answers:
No.
No.
Maybe: depends on context and receivership (level of analysis in the context - external consideration).

Seems a bit harsh. I think maybe this Forum is not a good fit for me. I will mind the door on my way out. :)

Weird again, nothing of the sort had been suggested.

 

[Zasino]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I don't recall intellectual onanism and rhetoric sophistry being part of the 4th way.

If I'm allowed my 2cts as a humble padawan learner, I found that a bit harsh, too.
And so there goes another smart, prolofic and well meaning (AFAIK) forum member...

 

[Niall]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Here are some of the 'Flat Earth' messages we've been getting of late at Sott.net:

August 25th:

Username: J*** S*******
E-mail: ***************@gmail.com

Message:

The reason for my contact is the "Quantum Quirk" photo. Are you poking fun at those who believe the earth to be flat? Is it "bird brained" to doubt the authority of NASA? I ask because Laura often refers to the earth as the "big blue marble" so, obviously she believes the earth to be a globe.

I have been looking into this topic for a little bit now, as it has been "trending". Frankly, I don't see any reason to believe a bunch of fascists(NASA) about anything let alone the nature of the world we live on.

Just a little clarification on the intended message of the "Quirk". Thank you.

August 6th:

Name: M***** F*****
E-mail: *******@aol.com

Message:

I respect Sott.net for its truth seeking journalism. What is your guys and gals, take on the "Flat Earth Theory" that is sweeping the internet????

BrasscheckTV getting caught up in it on August 3rd:

It's been a long time since we've run a video on speculative science.

Here's one that will get you thinking.

The earth is a globe - unless you measure things very carefully. Then it gets weird and interesting.

Video: (1:07:17)

_http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/28300.html

Somebody submitting an article on it on July 15th:

'Is This the 2nd Biggest Conspiracy of All?'

_http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/2nd-biggest-conspiracy-flat-earth/

Regards,

M**** F******

June 25th:

Name: A****
E-mail: ************@hotmail.com

Message:

You guys are forgerting the Flat earth deep study. Has to check out please.

And back on April 14th:

Name: h***
E-mail: h***@know*********.com

Message:

Greetings Sott Editors,

I'm a long time reader of Sott, and prior to that a reader of Laura Knight-Jadczyk Cassiopean Experiment, as well as a number of her books, Secret History of the World & 911 the Ultimate Truth.

I'm contacting you today as I came across a documentary on the subject of the flat earth hypotheses. I would like to get Sott scientific\research take on this documentary and maybe your response, in the form of an article on the topic , would be worthwhile for myself and other Sott readers. Here's the link _https://www.youtube.com/user/ericdubay77.

Thanks

H***

 

[Seaniebawn]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Here are some of the 'Flat Earth' messages we've been getting of late at Sott.net:

August 25th:

Username: J*** S*******
E-mail: ***************@gmail.com

Message:

The reason for my contact is the "Quantum Quirk" photo. Are you poking fun at those who believe the earth to be flat? Is it "bird brained" to doubt the authority of NASA? I ask because Laura often refers to the earth as the "big blue marble" so, obviously she believes the earth to be a globe.

I have been looking into this topic for a little bit now, as it has been "trending". Frankly, I don't see any reason to believe a bunch of fascists(NASA) about anything let alone the nature of the world we live on.

Just a little clarification on the intended message of the "Quirk". Thank you.

August 6th:

Name: M***** F*****
E-mail: *******@aol.com

Message:

I respect Sott.net for its truth seeking journalism. What is your guys and gals, take on the "Flat Earth Theory" that is sweeping the internet????

BrasscheckTV getting caught up in it on August 3rd:

It's been a long time since we've run a video on speculative science.

Here's one that will get you thinking.

The earth is a globe - unless you measure things very carefully. Then it gets weird and interesting.

Video: (1:07:17)

_http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/28300.html

Somebody submitting an article on it on July 15th:

'Is This the 2nd Biggest Conspiracy of All?'

_http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/2nd-biggest-conspiracy-flat-earth/

Regards,

M**** F******

June 25th:

Name: A****
E-mail: ************@hotmail.com

Message:

You guys are forgerting the Flat earth deep study. Has to check out please.

And back on April 14th:

Name: h***
E-mail: h***@know*********.com

Message:

Greetings Sott Editors,

I'm a long time reader of Sott, and prior to that a reader of Laura Knight-Jadczyk Cassiopean Experiment, as well as a number of her books, Secret History of the World & 911 the Ultimate Truth.

I'm contacting you today as I came across a documentary on the subject of the flat earth hypotheses. I would like to get Sott scientific\research take on this documentary and maybe your response, in the form of an article on the topic , would be worthwhile for myself and other Sott readers. Here's the link _https://www.youtube.com/user/ericdubay77.

Thanks

H***

oh god, that's just insane

 

[Joe]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Ah, I see, as long as it maintained a consistent height from the ground then there is no risk of flying off the globe. Makes sense! Lol

But what would happen if it flew in a straight line, not upwards like a rocket but across the surface, not following the curvature... would it fly off the globe? :D

A straight line or a flat line? If it flew in a straight line it would actually be a line at an angle to the earth, heading into space. If it was a flat line it would soon fly into the ground. Why? Because we live on a relatively circular ball of rock.

Here's the real shape of the earth for anyone interested. We don't live on a "blue marble". We live on a lump of space rock.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Joe]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

My main point is that rather than structuring this conversation as being about "Why Flat Earthers are Wrong", it would be better just to say "Here's how we account for the phenomena. And here's what we think is wrong about how you account for the phenomena", and then leave people to take their pick among these alternatives. If a few people want to remain dyed-in-the-wool flat earthers, that's up to them.

There are some topics where, due to the ambiguous or scientifically indeterminable nature of something, that approach would be best or even necessary. But in this case, I think we are duty bound to be a bit more hard and fast because of the largely conclusive and scientific nature of the evidence. You have to understand Mal7, our focus here on this forum is to come to as close an approximation as possible of the nature of reality, to make determinations about things, albeit always with an open mind for future evidence that might change the picture. Suggesting that we take an 'open' relativistic approach to this flat earth idea is not really in keeping with our mission.

Perhaps even more to the point, this theory seems to be closely linked to other theories that have emerged in recent years, all of which share the common underlying energy of the promotion of subjectivity over objectivity. This, again, is diametrically opposed to what we aim for on this forum, and it seems to me that these theories are one manifestation of the generalized essence 'disintegration' of some people, albeit while remaining relatively high-functioning.

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I don't recall intellectual onanism and rhetoric sophistry being part of the 4th way.

If I'm allowed my 2cts as a humble padawan learner, I found that a bit harsh, too.
And so there goes another smart, prolofic and well meaning (AFAIK) forum member...

That remark was not addressed personally to Mal7 and certainly not an invitation to leave (that's why I found his response to it weird). "Intellectual onanism" is an expression I took from Gurdjieff writings to describe the circular and polarizing reasoning we were going through in the flat earth debate (related to the above mentioned waste of energy-bad use of the corresponding centers).

Mal7, if you felt personally offended by the unfortunate phrasing of this remark, my apologies.

 

[trendsetter37]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Ah, I see, as long as it maintained a consistent height from the ground then there is no risk of flying off the globe. Makes sense! Lol

But what would happen if it flew in a straight line, not upwards like a rocket but across the surface, not following the curvature... would it fly off the globe? :D

A straight line or a flat line? If it flew in a straight line it would actually be a line at an angle to the earth, heading into space. If it was a flat line it would soon fly into the ground. Why? Because we live on a relatively circular ball of rock.

Here's the real shape of the earth for anyone interested. We don't live on a "blue marble". We live on a lump of space rock.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Also luke it is good to remember that aeroplanes must use the air and dense atmosphere to stay airborne. Your hypothetical trajectory that results in flying off into space would not allow the possibility of a conventional airplane to leave the atmosphere.

As you altitude increases relative to the surface of the Earth you then lose one of the things that helps maintain flight using aerodynamics. Namely things like the Bernoulli's principle which states that upward pressure is generated and applied to the underside of a wing. This pressure comes from the air so what happens when you go up in altitude and lose some or most of the upward force because there is less air?

You begin to fall back toward Earth or Stall.

Btw. the video in the Bernoulli's link is very entertaining.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That remark was not addressed personally to Mal7 and certainly not an invitation to leave (that's why I found his response to it weird). "Intellectual onanism" is an expression I took from Gurdjieff writings to describe the circular and polarizing reasoning we were going through in the flat earth debate (related to the above mentioned waste of energy-bad use of the corresponding centers).

Mal7, if you felt personally offended by the unfortunate phrasing of this remark, my apologies.

There was a misunderstanding then, as I did take it as being personally directed at me, and found it upsetting. So now that that has been cleared up, no apologies are really required, but thank you.

Nevertheless I am still not feeling very comfortable about the forum. I brought up the question about the Church, because I think the Ptolemaic theory that the earth was at the centre of the universe was once a scientific, or at least proto-scientific, theory based on astronomical observations and epicycles, and not just some irrational theological dogma. It was then incorporated into church doctrine:

By the Middle Ages, such ideas took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle's universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.
Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church.

- http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

Most likely the earth being flat is just too crazy to be considered seriously for too long by someone who is genuinely wanting to know how things are, but I think in principle questioning established ideas is healthy. In Harrison Koehli's foreword to The Cassiopaea Experiment Transcripts. Volume I. 1994 he writes (page vi):

And if history tells us anything, it's that the history of science is a long history of wrong or incomplete ideas. So it's best to be skeptical whenever scientists speak in terms of absolutes with certainty, whenever they put the lid on testing alternative hypotheses.

Maybe I or we should all just lighten up a bit and appreciate that the Flat Earth concept can make for some good science-fiction stories, e.g. Frederick Pohl's "The Tunnel Under the World". Synopsis: A man wakes up each day and finds each day is the same date, like on Groundhog Day. Something is seriously wrong with his universe. Eventually he discovers that he is no longer in the real world he once knew, but had perished in a nuclear explosion, and an advertising research company re-created his consciousness and his world in miniature on a table-top, for the purpose of testing different advertising methods.

 

[T.C.]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Seems to me that if the earth was a flat disk, Antarctica would be a desert, because it would be closer to the Sun. We have deserts on the equator - it doesn't get hotter the further south we go.