Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

So some scientific truths are never to be doubted, but just accepted as true ?

Correct.

Do you have any other examples, of such unquestionable truths ?

Gravity.
The speed of light.
Water can exist in 3 states.
Evolution.
We travel 2.5 million km around the sun every day.
(and so on)

Were you never interested in any concepts of multiverses

Quantum physics supports the concept of multiple parallel universes. Robert Heinlein's brilliant novel, "The Number of The Beast" portrays the science of the concept in a highly engaging way. And "Cosm," by physicist turned speculative fiction author Gregory Benford, depicts an experiment that creates a new universe within our own, using plausible science. (I've read both, more than once, highly recommended)

what, exactly, are you skeptical of ?

People who lie, and people with agendas (who typically lie). Flat earthers qualify as both.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
Where do you draw the line, between what is absolute unquestionable truth, and what is up for investigation?

I don't draw that line, everyone is free to investigate whatever they want.

What they can't do is claim they have the truth with only easily refuted proof to back up their claim.

Great : so we are all free to investigate whatever we wish. Thanks.

We're both looking at the same thing, but from different angles.

We both see that a FE'er coming her to make claims, is relying on beliefs, stories, right ?

For some reason, I also see through some of the supposed scientific " proofs ".
Within them, I catch glimpses of beliefs, stories, dogma, doctrine, etc ...

I understand that most have never caught those glimpses, or viewed them as I have.

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.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

The thing is belief doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

Truth is determined by evidence, facts, and empirical observation, rather than mere belief or opinion.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
For some reason, I also see through some of the supposed scientific " proofs ".

Ironic that this thread is actually not about scientific "proofs" but just a casual real world observation which would never happen on a flat earth. A rising/setting sun lighting the bottom of clouds.

a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Thanks for listing those.

Without straying too long OT : I'm sure you know that all of those have changed, or morphed somewhat, since they were first pondered, and will probably continue to change moving forward.

I don't understand how they can be ever-changing, and yet unquestionable ?

I don't think they are all liars.
Our beliefs, opinions, differ there.

I see most of them as believers, who fell for a good story.
I agree with you, and your thread from November, that the whole thing may very well be a shenanigan born of an agenda.

But the only ones that know for sure, are the ones who planned and executed/execute it.
For the rest of us : it's just a story.

We don't know, what we don't know.

I've developed a nasty allergy to agendas, narratives, and the status-quo.
This is why I'm investigating beliefs, to shine a light on my own beliefs.

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.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Thanks for listing those.

Without straying too long OT : I'm sure you know that all of those have changed, or morphed somewhat, since they were first pondered, and will probably continue to change moving forward.

I don't understand how they can be ever-changing, and yet unquestionable ?

I don't think they are all liars.
Our beliefs, opinions, differ there.

I see most of them as believers, who fell for a good story.
I agree with you, and your thread from November, that the whole thing may very well be a shenanigan born of an agenda.

But the only ones that know for sure, are the ones who planned and executed/execute it.
For the rest of us : it's just a story.

We don't know, what we don't know.

I've developed a nasty allergy to agendas, narratives, and the status-quo.
This is why I'm investigating beliefs, to shine a light on my own beliefs.

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.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

"This is why I'm investigating beliefs, to shine a light on my own beliefs."

Perhaps try and investigate facts and science rather than "beliefs"?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

The thing is belief doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

Truth is determined by evidence, facts, and empirical observation, rather than mere belief or opinion.

In case you missed it Shakey : I don't believe that science gives truth.

You are free to believe whatever you like.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

I'm sure you know that all of those have changed,

No, and that's the basis of the science-denial rabbit hole that leads to dismissing the globe earth.

Gravity has never changed. Our ability to understand it has been refined.

The speed of light has never changed. Our understanding of its role in physics has been refined.

Evolution has never changed. Our understanding of the mechanisms involved, and the underlying genetics, has and will continue to be refined.

I see most of them as believers, who fell for a good story.

Outside of fiction (of which flat-earth is), lies are never a good story.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
For some reason, I also see through some of the supposed scientific " proofs ".

Ironic that this thread is actually not about scientific "proofs" but just a casual real world observation which would never happen on a flat earth. A rising/setting sun lighting the bottom of clouds.

I love just looking at the play of light, and colours, in the sky.

Somedays, around sunset : it just takes my breath away.

The dancing reds, oranges, blues, grey : beautiful beyond art.

I think of our many ancestors, in isolated tribes everywhere, and wonder how they may have pondered these wonders of nature.

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.

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 ?

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.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

"This is why I'm investigating beliefs, to shine a light on my own beliefs."

Perhaps try and investigate facts and science rather than "beliefs"?

Thanks for the suggestion.

You do you, and I'll do me : deal ?

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.

a reply to: TheSkepticGuy23

Perhaps we are just getting stuck, in sticky language ?

Language has limitations.

I am neither prepared, able, nor interested in going deep into science.
I don't see how I could anyways, since you and two others, have called my understanding incorrect.

I see a working scientific theory, such as gravity, being tweaked or refined : to me, that says that whatever our current understanding is : it's neither truth, nor fact. Just a working model. It's not settled science.

There is a story, that was posted a few times here on ATS : some supposedly ridiculously overqualified man ( American ), recounts the time he met with a British association, that is responsible for many scientific standards.
In his story : he claims that the officer was surprised and embarrassed, that the man had discovered anomalies in the scientific standards for the speed of light.

It is said, in this story : that they had noticed that the speed of light varied, but they fixed the problem, by attaching the supposed constant of the speed of light to another factor, so that it wouldn't vary anymore.

That's just a story.
I don't believe it to be true, nor false.
But it creates a modicum of doubt.

For me : the refining of the theory of evolution : just indicates that it can't be labelled settled-science.

Are we just stuck on limited definitions ?

I didn't mean good in the sense of good/bed : I meant that it fools/convinces some folks.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

I see this is pointless. If you refuse truth and facts, there's no hope. Good luck.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin
I just saw someone try the hammer and feather experiment and they asked what others thought would hit the floor first. Someone said it would depend on whether there was a breeze or something like that.

Sure enough the hammer hit the floor first.

The same with the speed of light that you mentioned, when light travels through different mediums it's speed is affected. That is how a prism works.

The other factor in the story was probably the same, the speed of light in a "vacuum".

It doesn't mean the speed isn't right, just that it has to be in that set of circumstances.

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.

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
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.

It is clear, but it is also clear that you can't see science as different fields. There is no cure for AIDS or cancer, but that doesn't mean people can't calculate the mass and materials needed to build a bridge that can handle a load and flow of X amount of vehicles.

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.

In order to do that you are grasping at the straws made available by the areas where science has not gotten to the settled stage.

That doesn't mean that other areas have not been settled.

For example, DNA is composed of cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine, with a couple other things giving support and what not. That is settled. What the different combinations do and how they do it isn't yet known but it is settled that those are the nucleobases.

Like I said above, you saying "they don't know how the combinations work means it isn't settled" doesn't change the fact that those four nucleobases are what make up the encoding part of DNA.