https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6OLxiNUUnw
Printable View
1st Flat Earth is to be considered on the base that when they did that the last time a dimension of travel was not known.
We can travel by air for only around a hundred years , with mind you 2 world w ars , meaning no time to look around for the
common man.
2nd My idea is that the church had to give in to round Earth to stop people trying to make the next leap to a dimension.
If they figured out long sea travel and in a short time they found a NEW WORLD as big as the known world... what would happen if you make the jump to a dimension ( AIR TRAVEL , SPACE TRAVEL ) and find a BUNCH of new worlds?! We are probably fucked... we will have to conquer for days... upon days... its too much work.
3rd People use geometry Euclidean Geometry to measure the world... but they use a not real geometry to explain round Earth... THINK ABOUT THAT :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jvs_gTrP3wg
to MEASURE round Earth i met to say ;)
Oh snap... they took the video down. Here's Eddie on The Alex Jones Show !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLXDquNJa40
Man that shit about the north star made me think! Why is it always visible year round...? So i thought about it. Well i've lived my whole life on the northern hemisphere, so that makes sense. Have you ever trained in Brasil Eddie? I bet you have trouble find that north star. ;)
You are aware , that there is a South Star that is the same , seen all the time like the North Star , right?Quote:
Originally Posted by m leo
The point is that , that is all that you will see... all the time, meaning no change no other view than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_star
It is supposed to be like this :
Attachment 3596
Eddie's point is that we roll around the Sun too so we should see change in the sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=youtu.be&t=3m7s
Skip to 3:17 for some knowledge
Yes cus 72 000 years seem reasonable. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
Did your 7th grade scince teacher tell you that or you read it in the library? Was it writen 10 000 years ago on a cave wall in english :)
Well dude , they were burning people at the steak like 200 years back , we have air travel 100 years back...
My grandparents remember the wars my dad was born at the end of it, so i consider those to be true.
It is true that people tryed to fly in space. Considering that we can air travel and space travel for like around 100 years
im just saying is a fair point to ask to re-veiw the flat Earth subject .
And you calling me an idiot for exercising the 1st amendment its kind of funny...
it probably was not going to be if i was burning tho cus and let me step on to ur level you people
are the first to light the match or thor the rocks
I think you misunderstood what this video was about. They were not explaining anything about the structure of the earth nor were they talking about measuring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuT
The topic was the spherical geometry you get when trying to describe the properties of the surface of a circle crudely said as seen by a being that has no understanding of the third dimension and lives on it's surface.
So basically spherical geometry is needed to explain the measured distances and angles for a flat earth (for small areas euclidean geometry remains a good approximation).
When looking at it in three dimensional space you realize it is a sphere in euclidean space.
Also it is actually possible that our universe isn't flat (follows euclidean geometry) but curved meaning euclidean geometry would be the "not real" one.
(This is general relativity so if you really wanna understand what this means be prepared to spend a good amount of time on researching an understanding it as the mathematics behind it is quite complex.
Our current estimates make it extremely likely that our universe is indeed flat though.)
*Edit: removed embedded video from quote
Exactly, we have to use NOT REAL geometry to explain something that everybody holds true ;D aint that funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas Schäfer
Yeah , sry about that im doing my all to express my self so you can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
Jonas Schäfer , Michael Steinmetz
Not to mention they ( todays scientist ) use quantum physics to explain the stars that are 13 bilion star lightyears or what ever in that way... that quantum physics is pure guesswork.
You misunderstood again, the spherical "not real" geometry is needed to describe a flat earth.
A round earth works perfectly fine in euclidean geometry.
And I cannot really make sense of you second comment, but there is no quantum physics involved in determining the age of stars, don't know where you got that from. Stars a macroscopic objects ad are thus usually not described with quantum physics but using general relativity or often times even just Newtonian mechanics.
If you really doubt those things go pick up a few books in higher maths as well as physics and go ahead and solve the equations yourself. If you really find a noteworthy error I assure you a Nobel Prize is yours, but don't think a lot of people haven't tried.
Also quantum physics is not guesswork but follows a rigorous mathematical model. Yes it involves probabilities, but that doesn't mean it's guesswork.
Reality and nature are quite complex and learning the stuff you need to understand them requires time and dedication.
It's much easier to listen to some random, pseudo-intellectual on Youtube and be fooled by his nonsense.
Thats not true , the video says they projected a sphere on to a plane , cus euclidean geometry is 2d ... and then they use a NOT REAL geometry to explain further , a round Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas Schäfer
On your second point im a bachelor in applied mathematics ( just a final exam short ;) hah ) and math is just a language like english or spanish it puts together definitions and for robots its easier to process and its super hard for regular people.
In essence its just the study of flow in space ( n dimensional space ) . By definition from wiki "Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) " Meaning the study of life using numbers to talk ;)
And Nobel Prize is not give for math ;)
My point about quantum physics is that almost everything that is 13 billion something away is guess work.
With like you said A LOT OF MATH to make sure it confuses people.
Sorry but I'm not buying that you're majoring in maths while using words like real and not real to describe geometries or saying something like euclidean geometry being 2d.
Where did you get the notion that they used spherical geometry to explain a round earth and why is it "not real", please pinpoint me to where in the video it was brought up, I don't understand what might be interpreted that way. And either way just because somebody said something in a youtube video doesn't mean it has to be true, same goes for posts (including this one, how meta is that :p) one sees in forums or on social media.
I know what math is. I'm a physics undergraduate, but thanks for quoting Wikipedia and then making up your own definition around it (to be fair, the concept of maths as a language is widespread and actually somewhat fitting imo).
I thought it obvious that I was referring to a nobel prize in physics as we were talking about the geometries in the context of a "flat earth" and arising problems when considering the observed data.
You're looking for the word light-year if i'm not mistaken LuT, and quantum physics has nothing to do with something being distant away. Also claiming something that basically IS the subject you're studying to be nothing more than guesswork is quite odd to me.
If you're just an elaborate troll, hats off though^^
I couldn't agree more, science is about a lot more than fancy vocabulary.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmarkov
Exaclty. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonas Schäfer
ALL THE VIDEOS ;) haha or IN ALL of the video , thats what they are doing .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas Schäfer
I agree. But on the other hand academia is often corrupted, arrogant, and intolerant of new ideas. It's not hard to understand people's skepticism of mainstream academic theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
Sometimes you don't even need much educational background, you just need logic and critical thinking to compare theories and understand which makes the most sense. For example, want to know if the Earth is flat? Sail around Antarctica. If the Earth is flat it's going to take a really long time, and you'll travel more distance than if you circumnavigate the globe.
Here is another way to reason about it. There are direct flights from Santiago Chili to New Zealand, Ackland Airport. That trip on a flat Earth would travel over the North Pole, since those two cities are on opposite sides of the Disk. That flight takes 12 and a half hours. Yet another flight from Ackland Airport to Quatar takes 17 hours. How is that possible on a Flat Earth? Look at the Flat Earth map.... that second flight should take less time, yet it's 5 hours longer. Does that make sense? Now look at a Globe and it makes perfect sense. You can continue to do this, looking at direct flights and flight times between cities all around the world and you will find, contrary to what some youtube videos might suggest, that the Earth must be a sphere for those flight times to make any sense.
And you can go on... wake up early in LA and call your buddy in New York and have him tell you when the sun comes up. Now start thinking about how the sun, and the seasons, would work on a flat Earth. You'll have a hard time finding a way for any of that to make any sense at all. If the Sun comes up over the horizon, and the Earth is flat, Day and Night should happen at the same times of day, everywhere on Earth. The Sun rises up from the side of the disk and everyone on earth observes it.... Then study the globe, all of a sudden time of day and seasons make perfect sense.
And you can go on, and on, and on. Critical thinking is a powerful tool if you develop it.
Secret, governmental teleportation technology left over by ancient alien civilizations. And Bigfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
In all seriousness, I find it very interesting what has happened in the last few years, to a large degree because of the growing availability and accessibility of the internet and the popularity of social media. This trend of people questioning and distrusting well-established, over several centuries repeatedly and continuously tested, reviewed and updated, scientific truths, is quite fascinating and frightening at the same time. What I see is basically a retrogression from the natural sciences back to some kind of pseudo-philosophy.
In the past, before the scientific revolution, people didn't have most of the instruments we have today to do proper research, so what they mainly relied on was language, reason and arguments. Now, despite having all the tools, instruments and technology, a lot of people, to a large degree maybe out of laziness and the false comfort of sitting behind a computer?, are so easily fooled by pseudo-intellectuals on the internet. On one hand their "standard of proof/evidence" seems to have grown, because the evidence provided by the scientific community is "not enough" to convince them, but on the other hand their "standard of proof/evidence" seems to have fallen, because they so easily believe the flawed arguments, weak rhetorics and pseudo-evidence of random guys on Youtube. The troll-culture adds fuel to the fire.
Why are images released on Youtube more convincing than images released by NASA? An average dude on the internet is more credible and less likely to be full of shit than a civilian space agency? By which standards? What are we weighing against what and how to determine who's the more credible source of information? What I want to point out here is the clear hypocrisy. If you're skeptical towards one side why aren't you towards the other? You just chose one team and are against the other for no good reason. A more reasonable position would be to stay "neutral", which means to not be on anyone's side and skeptical towards both, but I'm digressing.
True scientific research is more than just reading articles, watching videos and putting together a bunch of diagrams. It's repeated and continuous, rigorous testing and experimenting. The beauty of the scientific method is that you can pretty much do it yourself and confirm everything by yourself.
http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Fi...6_noheader.png
I am impressed by all the several topics I could see on the forum xD. It is instructive for a young stranger like me.
.
Just saying tho...
Attachment 3610 Attachment 3611
https://preview.ibb.co/jvxqck/n1.jpg
https://preview.ibb.co/cxVXq5/n2.jpg
Sinking of the battleship Yamato , tons of tnt explode on ship , on sinking.
RIP to the souls lost in those wars, i mean no disrespect.
Sadly you're either gonna get ignored or likely flamed for posting the basic scientific method.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmarkov
Very solid post.
Yeah man , full of colorQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike Nall
6 moon landings :)