What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[newuser23]

But you don't believe them, right? You said you're a nonbeliever in everything. So you follow them, but don't believe in them per se. That's what makes you a nonbeliever in everything. You can claim that you only "follow" certain laws and rules about things that seem to work, but you don't accept that they are real, you reserve judgement as to their alleged reality. That's the kind of fence sitting that allows you to say that you don't believe in the flat earth, but you also don't necessarily believe in a round earth.

There is a difference between knowing and believing.
For us to better understand each other I think we should clarify our definitions.
As Fabric pointed out from the dictionary.
A belief being "existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

If a law is not immutable or can change. It becomes a rule.
My first rule is. There is an exception to every rule.

Imagine following a law and the law changes on you, that could hurt.

I do accept laws as reality. A law is known, repeatable and does not change.
Rules can be changed, twisted, broken and sometimes tip-toed around. A law does not have the same qualities.

 

[fabric]

I do accept laws as reality.

In other words you believe in them. And what if one day, against all odds, it does change? How do you know for certain the 'law' will forever be immutable?

 

[Jones]

I think there are exceptions to laws too. For example there is the law of gravity - but gravity doesn't work the same in all circumstances and there are some circumstances where it doesn't work at all. So laws are at best generalisations.

 

[Joe]

There is a difference between knowing and believing.
For us to better understand each other I think we should clarify our definitions.
As Fabric pointed out from the dictionary.
A belief being "existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof"

If a law is not immutable or can change. It becomes a rule.
My first rule is. There is an exception to every rule.

Imagine following a law and the law changes on you, that could hurt.

I do accept laws as reality. A law is known, repeatable and does not change.
Rules can be changed, twisted, broken and sometimes tip-toed around. A law does not have the same qualities.

Sounds like a lot of sophistry in service to solipsism which in turn allows you to avoid making a commitment.

 

[Joe]

Cartoon interlude...

 

[newuser23]

ShamanSam,

I was a bit perplexed by your following response. Were you facetious in response to Oxajil or was it meant to be serious?

Yes I am serious, my favorite is, to do a native sweat, it's not like a sauna; it's the little details that count.

I think it is important to know we are not the same, therefore our methods may be different.
Let me explain, why I make such statements.

Over a year ago I was in the hospital. One thing I noticed while in the hospital bed, whenever I tried to sleep or relax with my eyes closed.
I would constantly see a parade of people's faces, personalities and professions flash in front of me
Between 5 and 10 seconds each, it took a few days before I realized. What I was experiencing was the energy imprint or aura of previous patients. If you know how to ask the right questions you will get the right answer.

Fast forward January 2019, unfortunately my son had a serious illness and went to the hospital. By coincidence he happened to have the exact same bed as me, same room, same floor. This in an 800 bed facility.
The first day back from the hospital, my son said to me, " I see what you meant about all the faces" Apparently he had experienced the same thing.
Today while conversing with my son about magnetic imaging and M.R.I.. I felt the need, to express to him that we are a bit different from others. Perhaps because of native ancestry or our genetics. Many other peoples, have traits and abilities we do not have. And other peoples, have traits and abilities, those people do not have. This is quite possibly because of race or genetics.

Perhaps our definition of grounding is different.
What do you do to ground yourself and what does grounding mean to you?

 

[newuser23]

Sounds like a lot of sophistry in service to solipsism which in turn allows you to avoid making a commitment.

Hahaha I had to look that up .
Solipsism
noun
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

Don't worry Joe I know you are real and do exist.

Yes I have been trying not to commit to a belief for perhaps 5 years now.
It's a slow scary process, but worth it.
How can I commit to a word that a lie in it. Pshhh... Beliefs who needs them and why?

Did you ever ask your self? What is the difference between a placebo and a belief?

 

[newuser23]

Yes, as most rational people do. But ‘belief’ is still implicit in them.

This is from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of belief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing //her belief in God, a belief in democracy, I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique, contrary to popular belief

2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed //an individual's religious or political beliefs - especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group //the beliefs of the Catholic Church

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence //belief in the validity of scientific statements


For example, you follow the law of gravity. Why? Because your experience and observation of it tells you that when you do something there is an expected response (for example if you jump up you will expect to return back to the ground). That expectation is your belief.

That’s why your statement is contradictory. You can’t claim to ‘not believe’ in anything when you do so by believing in the laws. It’s incorporated into it.

Another way belief is defined is:

“confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”

If that is what you mean then yes, ‘not believing’ can have its utility. But consider this: in order to facilitate knowledge, you have to believe in something whether you have proof or not. The belief that something may or may not be true is not known. In order to know it we have to research and investigate. Science is predicated on someone having a certain belief and then setting out to discover whether it is true or not.

If we all started out with the idea to ‘not believe’ in anything then we’d still all be in the stone age, and something like this forum wouldn’t have begun either. In other words, one can claim to ‘not believe’ in anything but if that were really true of them they would be a complete and total nihilist.

"For example, you follow the law of gravity."

Yes but my knife does not. ;)

"Why? Because your experience and observation of it tells you that when you do something there is an expected response (for example if you jump up you will expect to return back to the ground). That expectation is your belief."

Yes I expected to hear or see a bounce, when the knife fell through the floor. ( figuratively and literally )

" You can’t claim to ‘not believe’ in anything when you do so by believing in the laws. It’s incorporated into it."

I think you are confusing believing and knowing.
Can a person believe laws without knowing them?
Can a person know laws without believing them?

"But consider this: in order to facilitate knowledge, you have to believe in something whether you have proof or not."

Again I think you are confusing knowing and believing.
Do you have proof of your statement?

"The belief that something may or may not be true is not known."
Please explain when a belief system turned to truly working system; be sure to distinguish between a theory and a belief system.
I have only seen beliefs turn to other beliefs. Then to other beliefs.
I think it has always been shown that a belief is like saying: "I don't know."
I prefer to be honest with myself and say I don't know.
No need for a placebo, just gimme the medicine; or not.

"Science is predicated on someone having a certain belief and then setting out to discover whether it is true or not."
Theory and belief are not the same thing. It is important to distinguish between the two.
To better understand both.

"If we all started out with the idea to ‘not believe’ in anything then we’d still all be in the stone age, and something like this forum wouldn’t have begun either. In other words, one can claim to ‘not believe’ in anything but if that were really true of them they would be a complete and total nihilist."
Again I think you are confusing believing and knowing.
Can you believe without knowing?

 

[newuser23]

I think there are exceptions to laws too. For example there is the law of gravity - but gravity doesn't work the same in all circumstances and there are some circumstances where it doesn't work at all. So laws are at best generalisations.

I think we should use the dictionary so we better agree and understand laws and rules.
Rule
noun
a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.
:the rules of chess.

Law
noun
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people,

"I think there are exceptions to laws too."
Aren't exceptions to laws unlawful? Aren't laws meant to be exact. Both are principles but law has authority to enforce it. I have always thought of rules as being more of a principle or conduct. Perhaps I am wrong.

"For example there is the law of gravity - but gravity doesn't work the same in all circumstances and there are some circumstances where it doesn't work at all."

There is no magic, just things that we do not know how they work.
Yes perhaps gravity can be suppressed or changed. But wouldn't that be like putting a radio in a Faraday cage? The radio still works but is being suppressed. The rules of radio frequencies does not change.

 

[genero81]

"But consider this: in order to facilitate knowledge, you have to believe in something whether you have proof or not."

Again I think you are confusing knowing and believing.
Do you have proof of your statement?

From Speculum Mentis:

"Imagination dos not exist in the free state, and itself requires a basis of fact. This basis of fact in turn requires a basis of imagination, for no fact can be known until it has been sought by the imaginative act of questioning, and the question itself requires a further basis of fact, and so ad infinitum. This is not an infinite regress only because the two moments, question and answer, are not actually separate. Their distinction is an ideal distinction only, and the presupposition of each by the other is the only way of stating their inseparability. The process of knowledge is therefore, strictly speaking, not so much an alteration of question and answer as a perpetual restatement of the question, which is identical with a perpetual revision of the answer. If it is objected that this reduces all the diversity of knowledge to a bare identity in which there is only one judgment judging one truth, our answer will be that this identity contains all diversity within itself."

I would say that belief is a device of the mind. A device that can be used to good effect or not so good effect. All of this discussion is therefore, as they say, much ado about nothing. And pointing out that the word lie is embedded in the word belief is not nearly as clever as one might presume. IMHO

 

[newuser23]

From Speculum Mentis:

"Imagination dos not exist in the free state, and itself requires a basis of fact. This basis of fact in turn requires a basis of imagination, for no fact can be known until it has been sought by the imaginative act of questioning, and the question itself requires a further basis of fact, and so ad infinitum. This is not an infinite regress only because the two moments, question and answer, are not actually separate. Their distinction is an ideal distinction only, and the presupposition of each by the other is the only way of stating their inseparability. The process of knowledge is therefore, strictly speaking, not so much an alteration of question and answer as a perpetual restatement of the question, which is identical with a perpetual revision of the answer. If it is objected that this reduces all the diversity of knowledge to a bare identity in which there is only one judgment judging one truth, our answer will be that this identity contains all diversity within itself."

I would say that belief is a device of the mind. A device that can be used to good effect or not so good effect. All of this discussion is therefore, as they say, much ado about nothing. And pointing out that the word lie is embedded in the word belief is not nearly as clever as one might presume. IMHO

Thank you that was very interesting and I tend to agree with all you have posted.

 

[on_strike_usaexpat]

There are also just too many inconsistencies in globe earth theory to ignore.
Even recently, plane takes off from Taiwan going to Los Angeles, emergency landing in Alaska because of a pregnancy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html
This makes sense with a United Nations type map.
Maybe it's not black or white, maybe not grey either perhaps blue or green. Maybe the truth is something we have never thought of.

Actually, that is a good example of a spherical earth. Take a piece of string to a conventional globe and put it between TPE and LAX.

Same thing can be visualized on a circle mapper site:

Great Circle Mapper

Great Circle Mapper

www.gcmap.com

So where would the logical stop be for a medical emergency approaching halfway or halfway through the flight?

I only bother to post because I'm bored and tired of the claims that Australia and NZ flights to Santiago, Chile or Buenos Aires, Argentina don't exist or that the many people past and present who have taken those flights are lying.

 

[Renaissance]

I would say that belief is a device of the mind. A device that can be used to good effect or not so good effect. All of this discussion is therefore, as they say, much ado about nothing. And pointing out that the word lie is embedded in the word belief is not nearly as clever as one might presume. IMHO

Good point! Belief is a fundamental aspect of how we perceive the world. We cannot 'not believe'. It is a basic part of our subjective nature. Sure, we can question our outer most beliefs, but believing we 'don't believe' is a belief in itself, and not an accurate one! The other thing is we operate on very deep subconscious beliefs, or as the C's have called it the 'belief center'. Knowing these beliefs takes time and effort, and adjusting them seems to take pretty specialized knowledge and effort. This is a bit like the elephant in Jonathan Haidt's analogy in how we are driven toward decisions, choices, thoughts, etc.

An interesting phenomena with flat earth and related topics is how people are unquestioningly questioning things. It's like the saying goes, 'keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out'. We have to be critical of our own critiques. This is especially important when it comes to getting into conspiracy theories, the paranormal, self improvement, liberalism, revolution, etc. These are areas that seek disintegration. This is a needed process for development, but it actually causes damage left unchecked.

 

[newuser23]

Actually, that is a good example of a spherical earth. Take a piece of string to a conventional globe and put it between TPE and LAX.

Same thing can be visualized on a circle mapper site:

Great Circle Mapper

Great Circle Mapper

www.gcmap.com

View attachment 29370

So where would the logical stop be for a medical emergency approaching halfway or halfway through the flight?

I only bother to post because I'm bored and tired of the claims that Australia and NZ flights to Santiago, Chile or Buenos Aires, Argentina don't exist or that the many people past and present who have taken those flights are lying.

Taiwan is at 23.69 degrees North, 120.96 degrees west
Los Angeles is at 34.05 degrees north 118.24 degrees west
Anchorage is at 61.21 degrees north 149.90 degrees west

So you are saying going up 27 degrees saves on mileage?

What is the distance going from 23 degrees to 34 degrees?

It really depends on which formula you believe or pretend to believe is the best.
Vincenty's formula or Haversine formula or some other method.

Using My calculations 23.69 degrees to 61.21 degrees to 34.05 degrees Flight path is 7093 miles.
Some web sites tell me Los Angeles to Taiwan flight path is 6958 miles.
Other web sites tell me Los Angeles to Taiwan flight path is 6780 miles.
Distance from Los Angeles to Taipei | Travel Distance between Taipei and Los Angeles

Quickly using a tennis ball, a ruler, scotch tape, string and pen.
I can see that the distances are about the same.
With the 23 degrees to 34 degrees path and the 23 degrees to 61 degrees to 34 degrees path.

Calculating and measuring can sometimes have different results or errors. Always better to measure to know.

 

[on_strike_usaexpat]

I surmise you did not even look at the "conventional" globe to even understand what I was getting at. Have you spoken to international pilots and how they plot the shortest distances? GCM is the method and they have been using it for gee...of course, possibly they are 100% all in on the conspiracy and/or are the matrix guardians.

End of discussion and yes approaching Alaska would be the shortest GCM path on the way to LAX.

We are obviously not "seeing" the same thing and further discussion would be pointless.