Flat earth theory?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Nothin

Just curious as to your beliefs or your disciplines in life ? do you assign to any religions or practices

whilst I use the scientific method to make sense of the great mystery I still lean towards the mind before matter universe
and that consciousness manifests reality!

I've spent a good bit of time reading hermetic stuff and books on those schools of thought!

I am leaning towards daoism , I am quite a psychonaut and have been for many years , especially with my partner
a nice wee tool for reminding us where we are and what we are "the one"

if you dont want to share here, I understand and would be happy to discuss by PM
if you have time

aww the best

Nothin much.

Just hanging in the space, with no doctrine, dogma, nor beliefs. But they just keep on knockin'!

No leaning. Just sometimes holding up ideas to the light of contemplation, temporarily. With no attachment.

Spherical Earth; Flat Earth; Basketball Earth that is sometimes inflated-like, or sometimes deflated-like; or any concept conceivable, or inconceivable.

OK, so when you are holding up the idea of a flat earth for contemplation, how do you reconcile that with the observations you can make of the positions in the sky of the stars, planets, sun and Moon relative to your position on Earth and the motions of the stars, Sun, and Moon throughout the course of their apparent journey across our sky?

Also during your contemplation, how do you explain the apparent orientation of the Moon and constellations a person (any person) views them from mid northern latitudes versus mid southern latitudes? Or the apparent distance the Moon is from the Earth when measured by parallax, such as the ancient greeks did when they measured that distance??

And then contemplate a spheroid earth and how those same things might be explained.

There is no reconciliation, because there is no held idea/concept, that needs to be reconciled.
There are apparent observations.

No explanations.
Just apparent views. Just looking, without conclusion.

It sounds as if you are saying you don't try to conclude whether the Earth is a sphere or is flat...you just "look, without conclusion". That's fine, if that's what you want.

However, for humans in general to advance their technology, it needs to be through knowlegde. That knowledge is gained by observing, thinking, then concluding. That "observation + critical thought = conclusion/knowledge" is how our advancements in understanding the world around us has happened in the past 50,000 years of civilization.

For example, coming to the conclusion (through observation) that the world is a sphere leads to other things we can then do with that knowledge of the shape of the Earth, such as being able to put communication satellites in orbit that allows the entire earth to ebgage in instatnt commincation.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Aye you can easily just observe and not make any judgements and live in peace with your environment
or you can try to understand what is going on and have to make judgements
I guess it comes down to that , EGO

a reply to: turbonium1

Lead is used because guess what it's easy to get a large mass enough to show the effect, other metals denser than lead can be expensive or dangerous.

Show an example that proves ships don't vanish over the curve using magnification post one example I bet you can't

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Aye you can easily just observe and not make any judgements and live in peace with your environment
or you can try to understand what is going on and have to make judgements
I guess it comes down to that , EGO

That's fine from any one human's personal perspective. I can accept that.

But from the perspective of humanity as a whole, we need to understand the world around us to move forward. Heck, even before we had civilization, humanity's transformation into a hunter-gatherer species was predicated on humanity's analysis of observations of the world around them, plus some critical thought/analysis, and then the drawing of conclusions.

Without critical analysis, we'd still be living in the grasses of the savannah and sleeping in trees to stay away from predators -- that is, if our species even survived at all.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Aye I agree that in the sense of progression into technology in terms of survival of the fittest it made sense !
the species moved out of the food chain by adapting through technology and that only happened when we were forced by our very nature to learn more about our world!

it seems as though it was an inevitable consequence of having being conscious beings that we would be lead to the scientific method !

I also have to think , if it werent for our chance bonding with Canines , would we have even made it this far as well ?

there is however a lot we do not understand and cannot use science to explain but is still very much a large part of human existence and that is our collective understanding of spirituality , which really cant be explained using the scientific method at least not currently with our level of technology!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Nothin

knowledge exists... you know that right?

Oy! Such a seemingly simple question.
Simple answer would be: don't know that.

Many things appear to be known:
Does Paul McCartney know how to play Twist and Shout, in 11 different keys, on several different instruments, with the lights out, and a parsnip halfway up his wazoo?
Probably.

What if poor old Sir Paul were to be stricken by severe, and advanced Alzheimer's? (Heaven forbid).
If he regressed to himself at 25 years-old: he would probably still know how.
If he were to regress further, to beyond a human state, where even language is lost.
Is he still Sir Paul, even if he doesn't know his name?
Would he still know how to play Twisty-Shouty?
What "knowledge" would he have?
What would have happened to the previous supposed "knowledge", that seemed to be no longer there?

Would his heart still be beating, because he "knew" how to operate the valves, and flex the muscles in the proper sequence?

Do you "know" where the nearest Walmart is, or is it just there, whether you know it or not?

Perhaps you were referring more to societal, tribal, and/or institutional knowledge?

Schoolchildren are instructed at a very young age, that the world is round(ish).
When the big test is passed-around, and the question is asked: what shape is the Earth?

Does little Billy answer round, because he "knows" the Earth is round?
Or does he answer round, because he is conditioned to write the answer that is expected, to receive a passing grade, a star on his paper, and praise from his grandparents?

Or might he answer: "How should I know? I'm just a kid! Who do I look like: Yuri Frigging Gagarin? "

Does little Billy get rewarded for an honest answer, or for a predefined "correct" answer?

Most folks will live-out their lives, and never return to question anything they were taught. (Instructed).
( Am not suggesting that anyone should get themselves paralyzed in a pretzel of never-ending doubt. )

What kind of knowledge do you think exists, that is beyond questioning/doubt?


(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas).

a reply to: Nothin

The relationship between the elevation Polaris and one's latitude is easily observable. And cannot happen on a flat world.
Just one thing that told people the world is round. A long time ago.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Nothin

Just curious as to your beliefs or your disciplines in life ? do you assign to any religions or practices

whilst I use the scientific method to make sense of the great mystery I still lean towards the mind before matter universe
and that consciousness manifests reality!

I've spent a good bit of time reading hermetic stuff and books on those schools of thought!

I am leaning towards daoism , I am quite a psychonaut and have been for many years , especially with my partner
a nice wee tool for reminding us where we are and what we are "the one"

if you dont want to share here, I understand and would be happy to discuss by PM
if you have time

aww the best

Nothin much.

Just hanging in the space, with no doctrine, dogma, nor beliefs. But they just keep on knockin'!

No leaning. Just sometimes holding up ideas to the light of contemplation, temporarily. With no attachment.

Spherical Earth; Flat Earth; Basketball Earth that is sometimes inflated-like, or sometimes deflated-like; or any concept conceivable, or inconceivable.

OK, so when you are holding up the idea of a flat earth for contemplation, how do you reconcile that with the observations you can make of the positions in the sky of the stars, planets, sun and Moon relative to your position on Earth and the motions of the stars, Sun, and Moon throughout the course of their apparent journey across our sky?

Also during your contemplation, how do you explain the apparent orientation of the Moon and constellations a person (any person) views them from mid northern latitudes versus mid southern latitudes? Or the apparent distance the Moon is from the Earth when measured by parallax, such as the ancient greeks did when they measured that distance??

And then contemplate a spheroid earth and how those same things might be explained.

There is no reconciliation, because there is no held idea/concept, that needs to be reconciled.
There are apparent observations.

No explanations.
Just apparent views. Just looking, without conclusion.

It sounds as if you are saying you don't try to conclude whether the Earth is a sphere or is flat...you just "look, without conclusion". That's fine, if that's what you want.

However, for humans in general to advance their technology, it needs to be through knowlegde. That knowledge is gained by observing, thinking, then concluding. That "observation + critical thought = conclusion/knowledge" is how our advancements in understanding the world around us has happened in the past 50,000 years of civilization.

For example, coming to the conclusion (through observation) that the world is a sphere leads to other things we can then do with that knowledge of the shape of the Earth, such as being able to put communication satellites in orbit that allows the entire earth to ebgage in instatnt commincation.

You may be right.

There is a difference between our own thought experiments, and the things we do as a society, to improve lives, and reduce suffering.

Perhaps the concerns of private-enterprise, are something else altogether?

(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

The relationship between the elevation Polaris and one's latitude is easily observable. And cannot happen on a flat world.
Just one thing that told people the world is round. A long time ago.

Understand what you mean, but just don't come to the conclusions that you do.

a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

The least/fewest possible.
For me: any doubt, prevents conclusion.

Is something that is 0.00000000001% false: true?
We can often see doubt, if we look at some thing, or concept, deep enough.

Ain't never seen no longitudinal line crossing a lake or mountain, but some dude sitting behind a computer-screen, will swear till he's blue in the face that it's there.

Is that truth, belief, 'common-sense', logical-conclusion, or something else?

a reply to: Nothin

and you wonder why i call you a sophist troll

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

and you wonder why i call you a sophist troll

Not so much.
It's possible that you are just lashing-out, after you were called ATS's Flat-Earth expert.

Not much interested in your circus-monkeys, sorry.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

The least/fewest possible.
For me: any doubt, prevents conclusion.

Is something that is 0.00000000001% false: true?
We can often see doubt, if we look at some thing, or concept, deep enough.

Ain't never seen no longitudinal line crossing a lake or mountain, but some dude sitting behind a computer-screen, will swear till he's blue in the face that it's there.

Is that truth, belief, 'common-sense', logical-conclusion, or something else?

Say what again? Lines?
Can someone translate this please?

a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape


I'll put my money on "Annoyingly and extremely evasive".

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

The least/fewest possible.
For me: any doubt, prevents conclusion.

Is something that is 0.00000000001% false: true?
We can often see doubt, if we look at some thing, or concept, deep enough.

Ain't never seen no longitudinal line crossing a lake or mountain, but some dude sitting behind a computer-screen, will swear till he's blue in the face that it's there.

Is that truth, belief, 'common-sense', logical-conclusion, or something else?

Say what again? Lines?
Can someone translate this please?

Could you please make your question about lines, a little more specific?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

oh hell - lets see just how evasive you can be

the topic is polaris - and its observed declination above the true horizon from any point in the northern hemisphere

these observations demonstrate that the earth MUST be a spheroid

you claimed to draw an alternative conclusion

what is your alternative and why ?

You might not believe it, but am not being intentionally evasive.

There is no "MUST", anywhere in nature, other than in the stories we invent.

Did not claim to draw an alternative conclusion. Please return to re-read the post you were referring-to.

Am resisting conclusions, by holding-up many different possibilities, and not being obligated to latch onto one in particular.

Many alternatives are interesting to think about, but there is no need (for me) to choose one, and then claim to believe in it.

To be more clear: don't have any single alternative conclusion, that am adhering-to.

His question was perfectly clear, whereas yours was exactly the answer that I expected - evasive. Please answer it in a clear manner.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Nothin

what conclusion do you come to - any why ?

The least/fewest possible.
For me: any doubt, prevents conclusion.

Is something that is 0.00000000001% false: true?
We can often see doubt, if we look at some thing, or concept, deep enough.

Ain't never seen no longitudinal line crossing a lake or mountain, but some dude sitting behind a computer-screen, will swear till he's blue in the face that it's there.

Is that truth, belief, 'common-sense', logical-conclusion, or something else?

Say what again? Lines?
Can someone translate this please?

Could you please make your question about lines, a little more specific?

Very well: "Do you really think that lines of longitude - and by implication also latitude - are visible?"