Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: Venkuish1

Earth is an oblate spheroid and this is a fact (not a belief)

You are free to believe in whatever you like.

That's not a belief.
I am just stating a fact.

You seem to want to blend together (deliberately) facts with beliefs. I wonder why? What is the motivation behind this? It happens usually when someone is attempting to reduce facts to speculations and personal beliefs so to promote their own version of reality and the usual flat earth and creationism ideas.

There is a difference between beliefs and facts. Science is based on facts that are deduced using evidence and proof according to the scientific methods.

Science is a self correcting process and in the presence of new evidence it changes. Based on the evidence we make whatever conclusions. That's not a type of belief. Creationism and flat earth have no leg to stand on and there is zero evidence to support them.

You are free to believe whatever you like.

Despite me having mentioned many times that I am not a flat-earth believer, and there being zero evidence of such in my posting history : you continue to display the demonstrably false belief that I am a Creationist and FE'er.

So you see : the only one pushing beliefs here is you, not me !

You are here to supposedly battle folks with wrong beliefs, yet you are full of them !

Can't you see it ?

Please take time to look, before replying.

You sound like a flat earther and you pretend you want to find the truth by denying facts and science.

Beliefs are created in the absence of evidence and that's why they are called beliefs. It's something you don't want to accept and your attempts to rename facts as beliefs are noted. That's the way flat earthers and creationists go about things, they completely dismiss and disregard evidence and facts.

You seem to be in denial of basic facts. For example, it's a fact earth is an oblate spheroid. What kind of evidence you have that made you come to the conclusion earth has a different shape? You don't have any.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
I understand how science explains it today.

But I also figure that science will explain it a different way, at some point in the future, whenever some new phenomena becomes impossible to ignore.

Apparently : my understanding that there is no such thing as settled-science is wrong, as 3 posters have told me thus far.

Correct, there are some things that are settled.

Take newton's laws of motion. They described motion at this macro level and at the speed we live with. Relativity added something to that, things close to the speed of light. Ok, but what does that have to do with someone trying to get a sofa up to the second floor? Nothing.

I think it's fine to sit in amazement sometimes, and give a rest to the analytical mind.
This is how I observe sometimes, because I have realized, that the analytical mind, has limitations.

Have you never put the analytical mind on vacation, and just observed something, anything? Art?

That is neither here nor there, it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Yeah : that is where my views differ.
I still don't believe in settled-science.
I do understand how we have working models, that are constantly tweaked and modified.
Sorry if that has not been clear.

To me: that constant scientific vigilance, to modify when new info is available : is what I mean when I call science unsettled, and never 100% sure of anything.

Also : my apparently wrong understanding of the scientific-method, does not give truth.

We were discussing this, in another FE thread, many years ago.
When a nice member and I disagreed about this point, I challenged him to ask the question, in that old physics AMA thread.

Two of the senior members there, said that no : science does not provide truth, nor absolute fact.
The scientific-method gives what we call a working-model, or can even be called a scientific-truth, which is different from an absolute truth.

Cracks my man, cracks.

Clearly not true and clearly you don't seem to understand that science is a self correcting process and any mistakes or gaps in our understanding are addressed when new and better evidence is available.

There is no absolute truth. That a religious term and the word truth shouldn't be accompanied with the word truth. Science provides us not just with working models but with evidence based research that leads to facts.

For example we know about the speed of light in different mediums or the speed of sound in different mediums. We know about star and galaxy formation. We know about evolution. We know about a range of things and as time passes our ability to understand the physical world becomes better and better.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

It's true people can fall for a story and especially when they lack basic knowledge in science. Classical examples are flat earthers and creationists.

If you want for example to argue the speed of light in air has a different value to the one measured and independently verified, hence established as fact, then you need to demonstrate your argument is true by creating the device, perform the experiment and record the measurements. Share your conclusions with the scientific community and let them independently verify your results. That's how is done.

Satellite view of earth can be found everywhere online. Try NASA for example. They have plenty of satellite views of our planet and it's not a secret... Unless of course you want to go down the rabbit hole by claiming (as you did in a number of posts) we have been lied to and there is a huge conspiracy to prevent us from knowing the truth.

a reply to: daskakik

Oh !
If you mean standards, like building codes, and such : I agree.

If I want to build a house, and I contact a contractor for foundation : I understand that he may tell me that he doesn't have any formula of concrete that he will guarantee, if poured during wintertime, and he may suggest I wait until warmer temps to pour the foundation.

I understand that the concrete company may use different formulas, depending on different conditions.

I understand working models, the ISA and similar organizations, ISO, and all that jazz.
I live in the same world that you do.
But other than seeing what everyone else does : I turn things sideways, upside-down, and inside-out, to view them differently.

I understand that if Joe Piscapo orders a house to be built, all of the elements of that house will be built according to accepted codes. Electrical, plumbing, etc ...

I'm just sayin, that if Sheik-Bob, decides to build a replica of the Eiffel tower in Doha : they would not take the blueprints from the original, and do it exactly the same.

They would re-engineer every step of the process, from the base gravels, the concrete, to the formulas for the steel and the rivets/bolts.

They would be different from the originals, but they would be based on modern standards.

We rely on these standards, every time we drive over a bridge, or through an underpass.
I do this everyday, so there is obviously a part of me that judges these things as reasonably reliable.

They are not perfect, and they change.

And in 20 years, if some retired amateur actor, with millions to burn, decides to build a replica of the Eiffel-Tower in Kiev : they will do so according to the then standards and local norms, which will be different from the formulas used 20 years previously in Doha, and a hundred years ago in Paris.

None of those methods, or formulas : are permanently fixed, and unchanging.
Accepted standards are temporary, and subject to change, when new info may come along.

This is my view, and why I say that science is never settled.

Our understanding of what Earth is, how it, we, relate to the solar-system, and universe : it's all in flux man.

On a functional level : things mostly work okay.

But every 4 or 5 years, there is a story in the news, of how some big chunk fell off-of an underpass, and caused chaos in traffic.

I guess, without knowing, that many times, small little chunks may fall-off. Maybe they hit the windshield of a busy delivery truck, and it's the fourth dent in the windshield, and the delivery guy just shrugs his shoulders.

Or a tiny piece falls on a car where the driver has the music very loud, and he doesn't hear it.
Four days later, he notices the little dent on his roof, and can't figure-out how it got there.

I see that they have put metal fencing, like a guard, on the underside of many of these underpasses, and I see how degraded they are.
Yet I still drive through them every day.

So what I am saying is : I do understand that these things are mostly reliable, but nobody could argue that they are 100% reliable.

Without knowing : I'll bet they use different formulas and methods, when building new over-underpasses today.

Standards are useful, and used : yet change over time.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm tired of your constant false projections on me, of your own false beliefs.

Snap-out of it man.
It's a fantasy world.

Sorry to disappoint you, and your seven fans, whom star all of your posts.

Because some things are unquestionable?

what once was an unquestionable fact like a name is similar to a faint dream, you question if it even happened, if it was ever real at all, then you forget about it.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2Orwell

Nuff said

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

I don't think it's what I've missed that's of concern.

You are also free to believe whatever you like.

However, don't expect to be taken seriously considering the shape of the globe has been firmly established and recognised as far back as the 3rd century BCE.

Don't you let anything like actual facts and physics get in the way of your ""believes"".

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

Yes. It's simply called progress.

It's why we don't have carburettors in cars these days or biplanes etc.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin
No, I don't mean the standards themselves but the science that went into the creation of the standards.

Infrastructure maintenance is not on the hands of science.

If material science says the metal fencing needs to be replaced every x years and the governing body decides to stretch it to twice that, it isn't an indication that the material science isn't settled.

But other than seeing what everyone else does : I turn things sideways, upside-down, and inside-out, to view them differently.

The one thing that I have never seen answered by FEs, without resorting to religious reasons, is the reason for claiming the earth is round instead of flat?

What do you see when you flip that question all around?

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: daskakik

but nobody could argue that they are 100% reliable.

But no matter “our understanding” a rock from my driveway is a rock. And no matter how much you think about it, it still has the same composition and shape it always has had from the time of being in my driveway. Unless I take a sledge hammer to it for example.

So like the earth. It has a basic shape and structure. And this thread started out why the sun works in such a way to illuminate clouds the way documented because the earth is a certain shape.

The opening post of this thread makes an observation and models how the observation works.

Now. Care to debunk the opening post. Or recognise it in anyway. To come up with a better model and explanation. Or you here to practice pseudoscience and derail the thread.

It’s amazing how much effort people will put forth to post endless amounts of pointless crap, and take no effort to just watch and ponder a sunset.

Before the internet, I heard it said people keep talking as not to be in danger of actually thinking.

I think some people post endless word salads so they are never in danger of actually pondering anything.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

I don't think it's what I've missed that's of concern.

You are also free to believe whatever you like.

However, don't expect to be taken seriously considering the shape of the globe has been firmly established and recognised as far back as the 3rd century BCE.

Don't you let anything like actual facts and physics get in the way of your ""believes"".

What ""believes"" are you talking about Shakey ?

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm tired of your constant false projections on me, of your own false beliefs.

Snap-out of it man.
It's a fantasy world.

Sorry to disappoint you, and your seven fans, whom star all of your posts.

We star them for having the tenacity to keep dealing with your spamming.

Just walk away.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

"beliefs" sorry i am Dyslexic.

You tell me?

Spill the beans so to speak.

After all they are your beliefs, I can't tell you what they are.

originally posted by: BeTheGoddess2

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm tired of your constant false projections on me, of your own false beliefs.

Snap-out of it man.
It's a fantasy world.

Sorry to disappoint you, and your seven fans, whom star all of your posts.

We star them for having the tenacity to keep dealing with your spamming.

Just walk away.

See one of my other threads how much spamming is happening with claims on creationism based on holy books and blind faith. I can't decide which is worse creationism or flat earth?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: BeTheGoddess2

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: Venkuish1

I'm tired of your constant false projections on me, of your own false beliefs.

Snap-out of it man.
It's a fantasy world.

Sorry to disappoint you, and your seven fans, whom star all of your posts.

We star them for having the tenacity to keep dealing with your spamming.

Just walk away.

Not even close to spamming.

Howz about not telling me what to do ?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin
No, I don't mean the standards themselves but the science that went into the creation of the standards.

Infrastructure maintenance is not on the hands of science.

If material science says the metal fencing needs to be replaced every x years and the governing body decides to stretch it to twice that, it isn't an indication that the material science isn't settled.

But other than seeing what everyone else does : I turn things sideways, upside-down, and inside-out, to view them differently.

The one thing that I have never seen answered by FEs, without resorting to religious reasons, is the reason for claiming the earth is round instead of flat?

What do you see when you flip that question all around?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If you're asking why I think some believe in a FE : I think it's part psyop, then some other poor folks get convinced by all of the material over the web.

I think it's easier for folks whom already hold multiple beliefs.
They have made that " leap-of-faith " before, and so that gap, perhaps, becomes easier to breach.
I mean the gap from consideration, to belief.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

Howz about you stop telling us which posts we can star?

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: daskakik

but nobody could argue that they are 100% reliable.

But no matter “our understanding” a rock from my driveway is a rock. And no matter how much you think about it, it still has the same composition and shape it always has had from the time of being in my driveway. Unless I take a sledge hammer to it for example.

So like the earth. It has a basic shape and structure. And this thread started out why the sun works in such a way to illuminate clouds the way documented because the earth is a certain shape.

The opening post of this thread makes an observation and models how the observation works.

Now. Care to debunk the opening post. Or recognise it in anyway. To come up with a better model and explanation. Or you here to practice pseudoscience and derail the thread.

It’s amazing how much effort people will put forth to post endless amounts of pointless crap, and take no effort to just watch and ponder a sunset.

I'm not so much interested in FE'ers beliefs.

I'm more interested in Ball-Earther's beliefs.
Also interested in the many other varied beliefs here.

Why folks believe in science, why they believe that Mind-Governors, MSM, and corporations speak unquestionable truth.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
I'm not sure I understand the question.

The question is, what would be the point of lying about earth being a globe if it really were flat?

If the earth was really flat then science would have marched on pretty much the same, except for that bit. We might still be flying through space. The creation/evolution argument would probably still be happening. We probably would have still gone through scientific progress just about the same. Space exploration might have been easier if you just had to drop off the edge.

So, what would be the point of lying about it?