^^^This!
^^^This!
its fake the whole thing is fake lol its crazy people believe this who saw the news broadcast ?? lol
I think sadly you are correct. Except there aren't millions of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPink92
I am all for people discussing the nature of reality and the place of humans in the universe. However, non-Globe-Earthers seem to not have a coherent philosophy at all. They are quite happy to use computers, mobile phones and the internet but claim to reject the science that underpins those very same devices...
In general, scientists observe and measure natural phenomena, hypothesise models for how things work and then test those models. Non-Globe-Earthers either completely ignore this or pay lip service to the concepts.
Almost all current scientific models are wrong to some extent (Richard Feynman said this) but some of them are useful - for example, Newton's Laws of Gravitation can be used successfully to describe and predict the motions of many objects that are moving relative to each other but don't account very well for the orbit of mercury, for example. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity explains very well almost everything we observe about the motions of stars, planets and other celestial objects but we know it is incomplete due to quantum phenomena.
Non-Globe-Earthers are intellectually dishonest because they claim to be interested in "truth" but in reality do very little to establish the veracity of their theories.
They have extremely low standards of proof for their own "sources", and a bias against everything they consider mainstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebG
As you said, science works well in many areas and less so in others. The scientific method requires constant updates and changes, because even though we know and understand far more than we did hundreds of years ago, the cosmos is so complex and huge, that we probably don't even truly understand 1% of our reality. It's incredibly fascinating.
I read no comments about the Non Euclidean Geometry open minded dudes...
I got no problem in finding a new "hobby" if things turn out to be ROUND , but till then i would like to learn something in talking to people about this and so far like Sam Tripoli says "i have to battle your emotions" before i can talk with you even...
I doubt you spend an hour finding out stuff about the Flat Earth theory , cus your arguments have no legs, people have theories and facts about all the stuff you guys are saying in all them threads. Its just sad trolling on your part.
So, if you would really "like to learn something in talking to people about this", then start educating us. Or at least talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuT
And whose emotions are we talking about? I thought we are trying to understand the world around us.
Science in some ways is simple:
1. Start off with a guess, a model, a theory about how things work.
2. Use that model to make predictions.
3. Compare the prediction to actual measurements of the natural world.
4. If the measurements don't match the prediction then start again or refine the model.
5. Doesn't matter how beautiful the theory is, doesn't matter how important or famous the person making it is, if it disagrees with measurements of nature, then toss it out and start over.
Scientific method has worked fairly well so far - I am typing this on a computer designed based on science. Over hundreds of years, we have refined our understanding of how the natural world works. Science doesn't explain everything - love, art, poetry, music, of course. And there are many mysteries still to be unlocked in the universe.
But the scientific method marches onwards. And sometimes something radical comes along that changes human understanding - understanding electricity and magnetism replaced belief in "magic", for example. How else do magnetic compasses work! And Einstein's Theory of General Relativity replaced concepts of Newtonian Gravity in a very profound way.
I am open to ideas of spirituality and non-mainstream ideas. Let's hear what you have to say.
However, starting off by saying that trigonometry doesn't work in 3D is nonsense. Build a box and measure the angles between sides and diagonals - it works!
Those are still planes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebG
You are talking about this
Attachment 3668
sorce end of page
And its in the non-Euclidean geometry realm ( the not real geometry )
everything that is in space you have to use a geometry that we dont use as real on Earth.
Do you understand that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chKa5kEhOPk
Those are bout the science you mentioned
So what is your problem with non-euclidean geometry? I take you have a a high level understanding of mathematics and are going to blow wide open the last several centuries of map-making?Quote:
Originally Posted by LuT
We can hypothesise that the Earth is flat, or a bowl, or whatever shape. And we can make predictions based on that hypothesis. And then we can make measurements and determine if those predictions are correct. Distances between cities corresponding to pairs of latitude lines are equal. Doesn't work if the Earth is a disc/bowl.
Astronomers have been studying the heavens for centuries and especially since the invention of the telescope have been able to observe planets and their moons and the motions of those extraterrestrial objects.
All of those observations are consistent with the Earth and the other planets orbiting the sun. We can use Newton's Laws of Gravity - to a first approximation - to make predictions about the orbits consistent with what is observed.
We have studied magnets for hundreds of years and understand how they work. This helps us understand how/why the Earth has a magnetic field and why Mars does not. Earth's magnetic field helps protect the atmosphere from being eroded by the solar wind, unlike what has happened to Mars. How's the Earth's magnetic field supposed to be generated dna dmatch what we observe if the Earth is a disc/bowl?
You've linked to 3 hours of youtube videos but you still haven't actually said anything to state your understanding. One of the points is asking why doesn't the Earth's atmosphere just dissipate into the vacuum of space without a solid barrier holding it in. The points made by the presenter completely contradict what we observe. The presenter claims that the whole of the Earth's atmosphere should be at the same pressure - "by the principle of equilibration". Instead we observe that the Earth's atmosphere gets thinner and thiner with higher altitude, completely consistent with there being NO BARRIER between the Earth's atmosphere and the vacuum of space.