Flat Earth Theory?

[A2K78]

Famine, thank you for basically reiterating what I've always said, abit in more detail.

Anyhow the point I'm trying to make is that the idea of a flat earth and earth-centered universe is a product of mostly pre-christian societies and pagans; these ideas being adsorbed into the church's teching during the christianization eras.

 

[Famine]

Famine, thank you for basically reiterating what I've always said, abit in more detail.

Anyhow the point I'm trying to make is that the idea of a flat earth and earth-centered universe is a product of mostly pre-christian societies and pagans; these ideas being adsorbed into the church's teching during the christianization eras.

Actually, I contradicted all of that. The idea of a flat Earth wasn't part of church teaching until the last century - the Catholic Church didn't even care about the shape of the planet, stating that it was not a theological matter. Meanwhile, science even 400 years before the putative Christ (I'd call that "pre-Christian society") was busy getting on with knowing that the Earth was spherical.

Flat Earth hasn't been a notion seriously entertained in over 2,000 years. It isn't even seriously entertained now - just some 19th Century fiction authors decided that Renaissance Man was an idiot and it was the Bible's fault (neither of which is true - though some parts of the Hebrew Old Testament describe a circular Earth consistent with the Sumerian/Akkadian philosophies of the time). In fact, if anything, the Church (erroneously) modified its position to account for the flat Earth that popular culture believed the Renaissance Church believed - as it does from time to time.

 

[TankAss95]

^@ Famine
I think what you are saying is true. To contribute further I believe the story is that the catholic church didn't care over the shape of the earth, but were very consistent with the idea of the earth being at the centre of the universe instead.
I think that's why Galileo and his work was so opposed by the catholic church, even though he was very much Christian himself. Shame.

 

[Grayfox]

"The Ancient Greeks thousands of years ago watched that and figured out that if the shadow was curved all the time, there could only be one shape of the Earth — a sphere,"

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8387215/eclipse-to-shroud-moon-in-shadow

 

[TankAss95]

"The Ancient Greeks thousands of years ago watched that and figured out that if the shadow was curved all the time, there could only be one shape of the Earth — a sphere,"

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8387215/eclipse-to-shroud-moon-in-shadow

As I have said you can go to 'The Flat Earth Society' forums for their explanations if you so wish.

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

I bet these people that still think the earth is flat think the sun and the moon are the same person. The best part of the pole is the "not sure" people. What do they think it is, a triangle?

 

[TankAss95]

I bet these people that still think the earth is flat think the sun and the moon are the same person. The best part of the pole is the "not sure" people. What do they think it is, a triangle?

Most of them think that the Sun and Moon are the same size (32 miles in diameter, 3000 miles at altitude).

 

[Grayfox]

As I have said you can go to 'The Flat Earth Society' forums for their explanations if you so wish.

If I did not only would I get banned after posting it but as a finale I would also post this.

 

[Famine]

And they invoke an "antimoon" to account for Solar eclipses. How they account for Lunar eclipses, or the phases of the Moon, or the fact you can get a telescope, look at the damn thing and calculate both its size and, with laser interferometry, its distance escapes me.

But that's not really the largest part of the problem with Flat Earthism.

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

And they invoke an "antimoon" to account for Solar eclipses. How they account for Lunar eclipses, or the phases of the Moon, or the fact you can get a telescope, look at the damn thing and calculate both its size and, with laser interferometry, its distance escapes me.

But that's not really the largest part of the problem with Flat Earthism.

Yeah, the biggest problem is that human beings still believe it.

 

[TankAss95]

And they invoke an "antimoon" to account for Solar eclipses. How they account for Lunar eclipses, or the phases of the Moon, or the fact you can get a telescope, look at the damn thing and calculate both its size and, with laser interferometry, its distance escapes me.

But that's not really the largest part of the problem with Flat Earthism.

I think you would find this interesting: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

Scroll down.

 

[Famine]

I read all that already. It is a large, steaming pile of hogwash.

 

[TankAss95]

I read all that already. It is a large, steaming pile of hogwash.

Ahh Okay 👍.

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

I tried to read it, but the more I read, the more I could feel my IQ points trying to seep out of my earholes.

 

[Grayfox]

I read all that already. It is a large, steaming pile of hogwash.

I am fighting the urge to their and provide real answers to their so called "FAQS".

I tried to read it, but the more I read, the more I could feel my IQ points trying to seep out of my earholes.

My brain has an anti-stupid filter to prevent junk like this.

Plus learning mode is off at the moment as it is 1:45am.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I think I got it wrong:

I was thinking in space time, where everything moves according to gravity lines.
e.g. the moon follows a straight gravity line around the earth that brings it back to its original position.

Since gravity is similar everywhere on the surface of the earth/sea, that must be perpendicular on straight gravity lines, so in that reference space time field the earth must be approximately flat.


But I get the impression that I have to read up on that theory.

In a traditional 3 dimensional reference I would go for a lightly flattened globe, but since the reference was not in the poll, I went for the other option.

 

[AlexGTV]

If the earth is flat it goes hand in hand with a global elit conspiracy that will guard that secret.

What a joke!

Yes, I don't know personally if the earth is flat, but I believe the innumerable photos and accounts. Some 500 hundred people have been in space. They are all liers?

Honestly, the chance the earth is round based on data is 99,99% if not more. Would you sacrifice your time investigating whether that 0,001% might be true?

After spending quite some time on the FES website reading the hilarious theories I concluded to this:

FACT: The "supporters" of the FES are there for the sake of argument and enjoy opposing the victims who take them seriously.

Read the conspiracy theory on their FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

 

[Jedi Joe]

I remember reading on their site that all the space launches were hoaxes. I dunno about you, but I see plenty of satellites after sunset, and I've even seen the ISS after looking at this: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/

Is NASA really setting up that great a scheme? Judging by the fact it's a government program, I highly doubt they could even if they tried... haha

 

[AlexGTV]

OMG, in a thread of their website a guy says he took a ride in a high altitude military aircraft and saw the curvature of the earth. The FE believers responded the windows were actually TV screens and some said he didn't even leave the ground but the whole scene was a mechanical simulation.

They are either idiots or mega trolls. I hope for the later.

 

[homeforsummer]

OMG, in a thread of their website a guy says he took a ride in a high altitude military aircraft and saw the curvature of the earth. The FE believers responded the windows were actually TV screens and some said he didn't even leave the ground but the whole scene was a mechanical simulation.

They are either idiots or mega trolls. I hope for the later.

I love how their explanations for things are often more complicated than just accepting the reality...

 

[TankAss95]

I love how their explanations for things are often more complicated than just accepting the reality...

But what exactly is reality?

And accepting the most simple explanation does not specifically make it correct. The more we (or more accurately, scientists) know about the universe, the more complex the explanation of the universe gets.
Think about the explanation of what material us made of. We used to think that material was just earth. Then we used atoms as an explanation (different models of atoms, though progress). The whole atomic theory is quite difficult to understand, but now look deeper to the structure of atoms, and then ever further to sub-atomic particles. Thus needs a further explanation - an explanation which is horribly difficult to understand (quantum physics)!

Of course this does not support the flat earth theorist's views in anyway, and that is not what I am trying to do. I am trying to point our that science is not specifically reality, it is an attempt to achieve understanding of the universe in which we inhabit.

For example the theory of gravity is not reality, but rather an attempt to explain a specific subject of the laws of nature which the universe contains.

 

[homeforsummer]

Must you do this with every conversation?

It was a simple comment: constructing a reality in which humankind has to cover up for every single possible eventuality explained by the cosmos is vastly more complicated than it all simply being real.

As for:

And accepting the most simple explanation does not specifically make it correct.

You'd do well to remember that one for the God thread.

 

[TankAss95]

Must you do this with every conversation?

It was a simple comment: constructing a reality in which humankind has to cover up for every single possible eventuality explained by the cosmos is vastly more complicated than it all simply being real.

As for:

You'd do well to remember that one for the God thread.

I was just stating that scientific explanations do not provide 'reality'. You are missing my point, it was not a subjection but rather a correction.

And you did not answer my question. May I ask what you personally think/see reality is/as?

 

[Dapper]

But what exactly is reality?

Reality is perception.

 

[TankAss95]

Reality is perception.

And what if our view of the world is distorted? What if we are looking at our surroundings through a pair of tinted spectacles?!
Look at quantum physics, it suggests that what we perceive is not accurate. One theory is that the whole universe is a hologram!

 

[BobK]

The map is not the territory.

(I'd thought this was an old Chinese saying.)

 

[niky]

Science is testing observable phenomena, verifying their generality or universality and formulating a world-view from this.

This is observable phenomena which are repeatable are accepted. It doesn't matter if we're figments of God's imagination, bits and bytes in a hyperspatial supercomputer simulation or the physical manifestations and extensions of extra-dimensional creatures. If the phenomenon holds true and is universal within our observable universe, then we accept that as our reality.

What isn't verifiable or repeatable is a gigantic conspiracy that would involve more money and man-hours than is feasible, and which could be easily invalidated by a single member of the society taking a ride in a self-built hot air balloon with a film camera.

There is a major difference between willful ignorance and the ability to alter consensual reality. Because ignoring reality can get you killed (try arguing with gravity sometime). Ignoring a fantasy won't.

 

[Schwartz]

What isn't verifiable or repeatable is a gigantic conspiracy that would involve more money and man-hours than is feasible, and which could be easily invalidated by a single member of the society taking a ride in a self-built hot air balloon with a film camera.

This applies to all big conspiracies, especially government ones like 9/11. Right on Niky. I'm not saying that 9/11 is a conspiracy, (which I don't think it is) I'm just saying that if it was a conspiracy there would have to be so many people involved that it would have gotten out by now.

 

[Dapper]

And what if our view of the world is distorted? What if we are looking at our surroundings through a pair of tinted spectacles?!

The tinted spectacles are our eyes and our view is how our brain interprets what our eyes see. The fact people argue is proof people have different perceptions, I mean realities.

One theory is that the whole universe is a hologram!

The tactile sensation my hands feel makes my reality not a hologram.

 

[TankAss95]

Science is testing, verifying and formulating a world-view from this.

Observable phenomena which are repeatable are accepted. It doesn't matter if we're figments of God's imagination, bits and bytes in a hyperspatial supercomputer simulation or the physical manifestations and extensions of extra-dimensional creatures. If the phenomenon holds true and is universal, then we accept that as our reality.

What isn't verifiable or repeatable is a gigantic conspiracy that would involve more money and man-hours than is feasible, and which could be easily invalidated by a single member of the society taking a ride in a self-built hot air balloon with a film camera.

There is a major difference between willful ignorance and the ability to alter consensual reality.

Thanks for that. 👍
So our 'consensual reality' defines the earth as being flat. 'Actual reality' may differ.
After joining GTP I feel like my eyes have been opened.