The Earth is Flat?

[ScottPuss20]

You haven't heard the good news? We live on the back of a turtle floating through space, and it's shell is the atmospheric dome.

To add to that @CLowndes888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

Some people seriously believe this? And have been for years? Ugh...

Birds, scorpions, bulls, serpents and other animal images make up the zodiac, and are considered to be of archeoastronomical and religious significance. Elephants and turtles also play a role in archeoastronomy and religious myth, it would seem.

Bottom line of this article below:
The "Flat Earth Myth" is indeed correct - if understanding it correctly. An Island of Light, surrounded of a flattish disc is indeed floating in the Cosmic Sea. This Island with its Mound/Mountain can only be the Milky Way with its hill-shaped bulge centre, which our Solar System are revolving around.

- From being a most ridiculed naive hear-saying myth, started of by people that have forgotten the real Milky Way Myth and later on by scholars that were/are unable to grasp the full Mytho-Cosmological implications, the truth strikes back and restores the stunning spiritual knowledge of our Ancestors.

http://www.native-science.net/Turtle_Elephant_Myth.htm
THE TURTLE AND ELEPHANT - AND THE "FLAT EARTH MYTH"

The World Turtle Myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle

The Turtle Myth in China

The Turtle Myth in India
Main article: Kurmaraja
Hindu mythology has various account of World Tortoises, besides a World Serpent (Shesha), Kurmaraja and world-elephants.

The Turtle Myth in North America
The Lenape myth of the "Great Turtle" was first recorded between 1678 and 1680 by Jasper Danckaerts. The myth is shared by other Northeastern Woodlands tribes, notably the Iroquois.

Iroquois Creation Myth

The World-Elephant Myth

Conclusion:

Creator Goddesses; Creator Gods and Creator Animals are most always all wrongly connected to the Earth - and, in the better case, connected to the Solar System and the planets, but they correctly should be connected very specifically to the Story of Creation and to the myths of the Milky Way.

- If the scholars are confused, it is because they are having great difficulties to, in the first hand with connecting the right animal symbols to the right celestial objects, and secondly they also have difficulties imaging that different cultures could have changed the older animal symbols, even that they mythological and cosmological of course meant the very same. Having these difficulties, the scholars themselves corrupts and distorts the mythological telling.

The "Flat Earth Myth" is indeed correct - if understanding it correctly. An Island of Light, surrounded of a flattish disc is indeed floating in the Cosmic Sea. This Island with its Mound/Mountain can only be the Milky Way with its hill-shaped bulge centre, which our Solar System are revolving around.

- From being a most ridiculed naive hear-saying myth, started of by people that have forgotten the real Milky Way Myth and later on by scholars that were/are unable to grasp the full Mytho-Cosmological implications, the truth strikes back and restores the stunning spiritual knowledge of our Ancestors.

Edited:
To delete as many thoughts as possible.

Oh wow

 

[TexRex]

That's your opinion. My opinion is all government officials disrespect their position and give themselves a raise every year disrespecting us tax payers.
At least he keeps it real. And I'd bet you'd consider me orange if you looked at me. Like Trumps golf time, you get tan being outside a lot.

What is my opinion? That he mocks global warming on Twitter?



You just stated all government officials disrespect their position, so surely my statement regarding his disrespect for his station isn't what's in question. You also verified his orange complexion and attributed it to time spent outside, say, golfing. So what's my opinion?

In 4.5 billion years one would kind of expect that to happen, I hope so anyway. It's an arrogance by a small minority to insist humans existence is detrimental to the earth whether it is flat or not. Maybe if it was flat we could just sweep all our pollution off the edge.

👍

If the belief that human action or inaction caused detrimental changes to the planet's atmosphere is "an arrogance by a small minority," why would there be a need to rid ourselves of said pollution? What harm is it doing?

 

[ryzno]

So what's my opinion?

He disrespected his highly praised position.
I don't think he did. In THAT tweet...

Id also like to add the concept of climate and season doesn't seem plausible to me with a flat earth. The earth should theoretically get an equal amount of sun daily. Thus similar conditions in all areas.

I was also happy to see snow during the holidays. GA use to get snow...

I don't think our "pollution" makes a difference either, when we exhale we put out a similar gas as a cars exhaust. Oh and don't forget the farting cows!

I can't figure out how to unitalic my post...

 

[TexRex]

He disrespected his highly praised position.
I don't think he did. In THAT tweet...

Resorting to petty name-calling is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Open mockery of those who don't align themselves with his beliefs is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Overstating or just plain lying about the state of current events is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Assigning individuals incapable of performing the tasks they're intended to perform and subsequently "resigning" them at a mind-boggling rate is not behavior befitting an individual of his station.

I suppose you're right; the tweet that I posted, the one that displays his mockery of the subject matter I initially indicated, does not wholly represent my later remark regarding his disrespect of his station. You got me.

Know what else gets me? That you've focused on my remark regarding his orange complexion, the adjective, and not the subject it was intended to describe: "idiot." One would think the latter more offensive.

 

[ryzno]

Resorting to petty name-calling is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Open mockery of those who don't align themselves with his beliefs is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Overstating or just plain lying about the state of current events is not behavior befitting an individual of his station. Assigning individuals incapable of performing the tasks they're intended to perform and subsequently "resigning" them at a mind-boggling rate is not behavior befitting an individual of his station.

I suppose you're right; the tweet that I posted, the one that displays his mockery of the subject matter I initially indicated, does not wholly represent my later remark regarding his disrespect of his station. You got me.

Know what else gets me? That you've focused on my remark regarding his orange complexion, the adjective, and not the subject it was intended to describe: "idiot." One would think the latter more offensive.

I'm trying to keep my posts on topic. And I'm tired of the crap that pops up after every President we get. The more I look at the history of politics it's a you vs me thing. They don't care about us.

I do think he's an idiot at times but as a tan person I do get offended. Being white I can't dare make a joke about any race.

 

[TexRex]

Id also like to add the concept of climate and season doesn't seem plausible to me with a flat earth. The earth should theoretically get an equal amount of sun daily. Thus similar conditions in all areas.I can't figure out how to unitalic my post...

I previously solicited insight into the FE mindset regarding climate change. Logic would dictate there is no direct link between the two, but clearly logic doesn't prevail in their world.

Regarding italics, you can type "[/i]" after the intented italicized text to remove the formatting from subsequent text.

Edit: I'm tanned as well--one tends to get that way when one resides in Austin--but as I stated, "orange" was a descriptor to further specify the individual to which I was referring should the mention of his tweets not cut it. And the rhetoric just isn't the same right now as it has been in the past. Regardless of political views, previous Presidents have acted presidential.

 

[TexRex]

Discussion has strayed from the topic considerably, and while how the thoughts of flat-earthers regarding other subject matters may or may not be appropriate, the state of a nation surely is not.

 

[wfooshee]

Most of what I read in that tweet was that he was mocking the world's expectation that it's the US's responsibility to "correct" Global Warming, and to finance whatever correction might be devised. But if you want to just read the part up to "Global Warming" and ignore the rest of it, that's up to you.

 

[Imari]

At least he keeps it real.

Some people seriously believe this? And have been for years? Ugh...

It's the Flat Earth equivalent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a belief that is both obviously insane as well as exactly as plausible as the belief that it mocks. Perhaps some people believe it, but mostly it's a rhetorical tool to attempt to demonstrate to people just how crazy things can get if you're simply subscribing to any belief without reference to objective observations.

Most of what I read in that tweet was that he was mocking the world's expectation that it's the US's responsibility to "correct" Global Warming, and to finance whatever correction might be devised.

Which would also be a ridiculous belief for the leader of a major country to hold. Especially one that has intentionally withdrawn their country from the Paris Agreement. You know, that thing where pretty much every other country made a pledge to address greenhouse gas emissions? The world expects the US to do their part, like every other country, but Trump apparently finds that idea objectionable. To the surprise of exactly no one.

 

[novcze]

haha ... One in ten French people believe the Earth may be flat and 16 percent think the US faked its moon landings

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180108/fr...-what-the-french-think-of-conspiracy-theories

 

[KungFury]

"The results of the survey confirm that we are facing a phenomenon that is not only real but also major, which cuts across our society and influences our collective views to a worrying degree," the think-tank said.

But why is it so worrying?

 

[Touring Mars]

haha ... One in ten French people believe the Earth may be flat

I bet it was even higher before a Frenchman broke the record for the fastest solo round-the-world navigation...

But why is it so worrying?

Because the degree of ignorance - deliberate or otherwise - required for such idiotic and discredited ideas to gain this much traction indicates that a disturbingly high number of people are prepared to reject facts and the method(s) by which facts/truth are established.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which would also be a ridiculous belief for the leader of a major country to hold. Especially one that has intentionally withdrawn their country from the Paris Agreement. You know, that thing where pretty much every other country made a pledge to address greenhouse gas emissions? The world expects the US to do their part, like every other country, but Trump apparently finds that idea objectionable. To the surprise of exactly no one.

The U.S. has done their part in reducing emissions, better in fact than most countries in the world, all without any Paris Agreement. So called global warming emissions have been going down for more than a decade in the U.S. while much of the world remains the same or, in the case of China and India for example, are increasing rapidly. Rightly or wrongly, Trump saw the Paris Agreement as a bad deal for the U.S., but to tie that to actual work being done on reducing emissions is pretty myopic. The U.S. is doing their part, they just didn't want to be hamstrung by rules and regulations they thought were punitive or damaging to their economy.

 

[eran0004]

In 4.5 billion years one would kind of expect that to happen, I hope so anyway. It's an arrogance by a small minority to insist humans existence is detrimental to the earth whether it is flat or not. Maybe if it was flat we could just sweep all our pollution off the edge.

👍

Isn't that the reason why we're trying to melt the polar ice away? So that we can reach the edge to dump our pollution?

 

[TexRex]

The U.S. has done their part in reducing emissions, better in fact than most countries in the world, all without any Paris Agreement. So called global warming emissions have been going down for more than a decade in the U.S.

As a result of Trump's actions or the actions of his appointees? Obviously not. I'm not holding my breath to see what Scott Pruitt does either, as I suspect I'll have to hold my breath after he does it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As a result of Trump's actions or the actions of his appointees? Obviously not. I'm not holding my breath to see what Scott Pruitt does either, as I suspect I'll have to hold my breath after he does it.

Didn't say the reductions had anything to do with Trump. How about the rest of my post?

 

[TexRex]

Didn't say the reductions had anything to with Trump.

Yeah, okay.

 

[Imari]

The U.S. is doing their part, they just didn't want to be hamstrung by rules and regulations they thought were punitive or damaging to their economy.

You may want to look up exactly what the Paris Agreement entailed. But the TL;DR version from Wiki is "In the Paris Agreement, each country determines, plans and regularly reports its own contribution it should make in order to mitigate global warming. There is no mechanism to force a country to set a specific target by a specific date, but each target should go beyond previously set targets."

Basically, all it required was a country making some sort of commitment to mitigate global warming. There were no rules or restrictions, other than those which the countries imposed on themselves and that it must increase over time. The US commitment could be as little or as much as they wished.

That's why it was so baffling that Trump should pull out of it citing the fact that it would cripple the US. If the US is undertaking actions to mitigate global warming anyway, then all they have to do is put those in the Agreement and it's a fine show of solidarity with the rest of the planet.

The only thing gained by removing the US from the Paris Agreement is the ability to reduce or remove US contributions to mitigating global warming, if the US wished. Why that freedom would be valuable enough to the US government to be worth antagonising all the other member states is unclear, but I can't think of many reasons that would really be to the benefit of the US as a whole. More likely to the benefit of a few who have high stakes in industries that are impacted strongly by the shift in technology that is the main thrust of combating global warming.

 

[UKMikey]

haha ... One in ten French people believe the Earth may be flat and 16 percent think the US faked its moon landings

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180108/fr...-what-the-french-think-of-conspiracy-theories

I thought this was all covered in the general conspiracy thread on Monday?

 

[ryzno]

Basically, all it required was a country making some sort of commitment to mitigate global warming. There were no rules or restrictions, other than those which the countries imposed on themselves and that it must increase over time. The US commitment could be as little or as much as they wished.

That's why it was so baffling that Trump should pull out of it citing the fact that it would cripple the US. If the US is undertaking actions to mitigate global warming anyway, then all they have to do is put those in the Agreement and it's a fine show of solidarity with the rest of the planet.

Is there some sort of money we pay in?
And I believe he also got us out of the agreement so he could ease restrictions on industry.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is there some sort of money we pay in?
And I believe he also got us out of the agreement so he could ease restrictions on industry.

Oh just a trifling amount. I believe it was $100billion a year with a big chunk of it coming out the American's pockets I assume.

 

[Imari]

Oh just a trifling amount. I believe it was $100billion a year with a big chunk of it coming out the American's pockets I assume.

Can you at least make an effort to educate yourself instead of speculating?

It's called the Green Climate fund. It aims to be generating $100 billion of pledged funds per year by 2020. So far something on the order of $10 billion has been pledged from all sources. The US pledged $3 billion under Obama, of which $1 billion has actually been paid. Given Trump's stated policy towards the Paris Agreement, I doubt that the other $2 billion will be paid.

What do you call a big chunk? 1%?

You can look up what other countries have pledged. The US is second behind the EU if you take the $3 billion number, but also behind Japan and the UK if you take $1 billion. Considering that the US is one of the highest emitting countries per capita outside of the Middle East*, that sounds not unreasonable to me.

*Amusingly enough, Australia is right behind the US. Australia has pledged $187 million. Yes, I think they could probably do with pledging more, although if we look at it per capita again the contribution is comparable to the US $3 billion (that won't get paid).

And I believe he also got us out of the agreement so he could ease restrictions on industry.

That's sort of the point. He got out of it so that the US could be less bound to take action on global warming. Presumably for the benefit of industries that would be most affected by that.

One might argue that impacting industries that cause global warming is entirely the point of action on global warming. Then again, if one was less interested in global warming than enriching one's friends in industry, it might seem like a good deal.

 

[Dennisch]

Not to piss on anyone's parade, but why are you guys discussing global warming in this **** hole thread of a flat earth?

 

[Danoff]

**** hole thread

Just because the President of the United States says it, doesn't mean it's a nice thing to say.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Can you at least make an effort to educate yourself instead of speculating?

It's called the Green Climate fund. It aims to be generating $100 billion of pledged funds per year by 2020. So far something on the order of $10 billion has been pledged from all sources. The US pledged $3 billion under Obama, of which $1 billion has actually been paid. Given Trump's stated policy towards the Paris Agreement, I doubt that the other $2 billion will be paid.

What do you call a big chunk? 1%?

You can look up what other countries have pledged. The US is second behind the EU if you take the $3 billion number, but also behind Japan and the UK if you take $1 billion. Considering that the US is one of the highest emitting countries per capita outside of the Middle East*, that sounds not unreasonable to me.

*Amusingly enough, Australia is right behind the US. Australia has pledged $187 million. Yes, I think they could probably do with pledging more, although if we look at it per capita again the contribution is comparable to the US $3 billion (that won't get paid).



That's sort of the point. He got out of it so that the US could be less bound to take action on global warming. Presumably for the benefit of industries that would be most affected by that.

One might argue that impacting industries that cause global warming is entirely the point of action on global warming. Then again, if one was less interested in global warming than enriching one's friends in industry, it might seem like a good deal.

So the U.S. has pledged 30% of the total pledges so far but you think they are going to pledge a "big chunk" on the order of 1%??...when they've already pledged triple that. And I'm speculating?

 

[Imari]

So the U.S. has pledged 30% of the total pledges so far but you think they are going to pledge a "big chunk" on the order of 1%??...when they've already pledged triple that. And I'm speculating?

You were talking about a big chunk of the $100 billion target? They've pledged 3% of that, paid 1% and are unlikely to pay any more.

And yes, you're speculating. You stated in your post that you were assuming. The information is available, if you wish to look.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You were talking about a big chunk of the $100 billion target? They've pledged 3% of that, paid 1% and are unlikely to pay any more.

And yes, you're speculating. You stated in your post that you were assuming. The information is available, if you wish to look.

And they've made 30% of the pledges so far. Six of this, half dozen of the other.

 

[Imari]

And they've made 30% of the pledges so far. Six of this, half dozen of the other.

So you're claiming that the US is shouldering the brunt of financing the Paris Agreement by paying $1 billion, is that what I'm hearing? And that's the justification for pulling out?

I'm honestly unclear what argument that you're trying to make that being in the Paris Agreement was financially arduous on the US. The US wasn't required to fund significant portions, it was voluntary. They had already paid a small amount (on the scale of the finances of nations) and had pledged some more, and that pledge was not inconsistent with other similar nations.

The reality is that the idea of the Paris Agreement being a financial burden on the US is another Trump lie. Being in the Paris Agreement was not financially arduous for the US. The GCF could lay claim to a certain portion of funds thanks to the voluntary choices of the previous administration, but there was no requirement for Trump to pledge any further monies. And what had been pledged already was hardly breaking the bank. There's any number of areas in which the US has assigned multiple billion dollars to be paid that depending on your view could be deemed a bigger waste of money than a couple of billion to fund a climate change advocacy group. One could even argue that a couple of billion dollars simply to keep the US viewed as a country that stands by it's word might be a decent deal, because who wants to deal with a country who will renege on the promises of previous administrations outright? It's one thing to disagree with a policy, it's another to undermine national credibility.

The reality is the Trump wanted out, probably because he simply doesn't care that much about climate change compared to the potential damage that could be done to his businesses and those of his compatriots, and national level finance is something that many citizens will simply accept at face value without really thinking about it. Take yourself as an example, you're intelligent and reasonably well informed, yet you accepted his justification apparently without giving it a second look.

Two billion dollars feels like a lot of money to most people, but it's just a number among many other much bigger numbers when it comes to running a country. The annual spend for the US government is something like $4 trillion. To put that in perspective to Joe Public who earns say $60k a year, spending a billion dollars for the government is like Joe spending $15. Maybe Joe thinks about it, but probably not for longer than 30 seconds. It's only fifteen bucks.

To bring it back at least somewhat on topic, it's the same sort of societal myopia that allows people to be unable to visualise beyond the horizon and accept the simplistic view that the earth is flat because that "feels" right. I'd be interested to know what someone like Donald Trump thinks of Flat Earthers and the Flat Earther movement. I'd be interested to know what any politician thinks, because it's often hard to get politicians to flat out condemn the actions or beliefs of potential voters, no matter how unhinged they might be.

 

[Michael88]

 

[Joey D]

I can't wait for this to happen: https://gizmodo.com/rebuffed-flat-earth-rocketeer-says-he-will-actually-lau-1822364177

Also, his quotes are pure gold:

I don’t believe in science. I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction.

And my personal favorite about flying drones near the launch:

“I am the only man in history to design then build then launch myself in my own rocket,” he added. “So fly your drones up your ass.”

Flying Rectal Drones would make a good garage band name.