Flat Earth?

[paul's got wright]

isle of man in the "flat earth news again".

 

[The Bastard]

You don't know me and you're clearly a bit disturbed by such notions as freedom of the peaceful mind and the confidence to be honest. I just used what you wrote poorly, in a positive way. If you have a problem with something i have posted please feel free to discuss it. I just dont see the point of coming here to attempt toridicule, only to fail miserably. What does that do for you or this thread?

 

Since you don't know me either, how do you know that I'm disturbed by notions such as freedom of the peaceful mind and the confidence to be honest ? I'm not disturbed by either, and I don't believe that you're exhibiting either.

 

Again, you're trying to assign some sort of nobility of cause to your sophistry, just like in the "Babylon wins" thread, as if the validity of your opinions are unchallengeable because of the "peacefulness of your mind", a perspective that again suggests you think of yourself like a special prophet delivering an unquestionable message.

 

It's the same argument you recycle on every thread, calling me out for ridiculing your opinions, whilst routinely dismissing the opinions of others on the grounds that they're not as "special" as you when you're unable to deal with an argument. You've derailed so many threads and so many useful contributions with this "holier than thou" routine, that you have no right to question anyone's contribution.

 

Your opinions aren't "facts" and can be questioned. If you need some kind of altered mental state to believe in them, it's a good indication that they're delusional, not rational.

[manxy]

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat.

 

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

 

 

One could argue that in one of the many types of dimensions, the earth might well be flat or have a shape not of an oblate spheroid. I'm sure scientists have already worked these theories out as like multiverses or string theory and even quantum physics.

 

There's some fascinating material out there already and I envy the possibilities that are being discovered and not yet revealed.

[dilligaf]

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat.

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

 

One could argue that in one of the many types of dimensions, the earth might well be flat or have a shape not of an oblate spheroid. I'm sure scientists have already worked these theories out as like multiverses or string theory and even quantum physics.

 

There's some fascinating material out there already and I envy the possibilities that are being discovered and not yet revealed.

WHAT ?

[manxy]

 

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat.

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

One could argue that in one of the many types of dimensions, the earth might well be flat or have a shape not of an oblate spheroid. I'm sure scientists have already worked these theories out as like multiverses or string theory and even quantum physics.

 

There's some fascinating material out there already and I envy the possibilities that are being discovered and not yet revealed.

WHAT ?

 

As your normal replies are generally negative one liners on the flat earth topic and also other subjects on manxforums, it's pointless discussing this with you and request you do your own research into those areas.

[Tweek]

It is only our perception that makes the Earth a sphere, and perception that makes us think we actually live in a 3D environment with a fourth dimension of time moving foward. And Newtonian mathematical descriptions simply succesfully map to that preception/illusion of reality and works for our perception of reality.

 

The true situation is likely far different, and likely incomprehensible to the human mind, which in a human 4D world always looks for a beginning and an end, an 'outside', and a cause or a creator.

 

That's what much main stream research into quantum physics, string theory, holographic projection and multiverse/many worlds theories currently suggest.

[ManxTaxPayer]

There's some fascinating material out there already and I envy the possibilities that are being discovered and not yet revealed.

 

I have called an emergency meeting of the WTF Committee to thrash out some possible meanings of this statement. It's a thing of beauty.

[dilligaf]

 

 

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat.

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

One could argue that in one of the many types of dimensions, the earth might well be flat or have a shape not of an oblate spheroid. I'm sure scientists have already worked these theories out as like multiverses or string theory and even quantum physics.

 

There's some fascinating material out there already and I envy the possibilities that are being discovered and not yet revealed.

WHAT ?

 

As your normal replies are generally negative one liners on the flat earth topic and also other subjects on manxforums, it's pointless discussing this with you and request you do your own research into those areas.

 

I thought you were smarter than that !

[Chinahand]

Manxy, what you are saying is sophistry.

 

You could equally claim you are "in fact" a 10 foot tall zombie octopus, but only in another dimension.

 

That though is irrelevant if you are being asked what you look like in our dimensions - it would be disingenuous of you to pretend a photograph, or a description, of you doesn't accurately portrays you as a perfectly normal person and not a 10 foot zombie octopus. Really. Are you going to argue about this?

 

We are attempting to describe the shape of the earth in normal 3 dimensional space.

 

Measuring it with tools that work in our world.

 

If anyone looks up and sees a star right above their heads - 90 degrees straight up. Then that IS the angle to the star from that point. Claiming that it might be 20 degrees in another dimension is not relevant. You can quibble whether it is 89.999998 or 91.2 degrees, and error bands are hugely important, but that does not change the fact that there is a star basically directly above your head.

 

On any particular night you can find such a star. This isn't sophistry - it is a real observation you can make.

 

Now if someone else is elsewhere on the Earth then that star will not be directly overhead for them.

 

Do you believe this?

 

This person will be able to measure the lowest angle the star is positioned up from the horizon and, say, how far around horizon that point is from North.

 

Again this is a real measurement.

 

Evidence.

 

The position and angle of the star will be different for the second person, and they can use these different measurements to calculate how far away they are from you with the star above your head.

 

Again I ask you - do you believe this or not?

 

The maths for working this out isn't that complicated.

 

Astronomers, Sailors and navigators have been doing it for thousands of years.

 

Now if you have a star that is directly above your head, and your friend is on the same longitude as you, for every degree of latitude they move away from you the star will drop one degree in the sky, until when they are 90 degrees away from you the star will have set below the horizon.

 

This is a fact. Do you believe this?

 

You can quibble a tiny bit, because atmospheric refraction will add in about 1/2 a degree of error to this, and the abberation of light about 40'' of error parallax even less than that, heck yes even the oblateness of the world will result in the actual results being a tiny bit out etc.

 

These are analogous to a photograph of you being pixelated - the fact the picture is made up of blue, red and green dots if you looked at it really really closely doesn't mean a photo of you isn't a photo of you.

 

Now this is the nub of the issue - how can this fact be explained. Why does the angle of a star, viewed from a line of longitude, change by 1 degree for every degree of latitude you move?

 

Again this is a fact - it is why we use longitude and latitude to work out our position on the earth. And if PGW is going to go - I don't know if this is a fact, so I'm going to ignore it - get a sextant or a telescope and stop being ignorant. Your ignorance is not a justification to deny facts that you can verify for yourself.

 

You can do this anywhere on Earth

 

There is only one way to explain this - and if anyone disagrees they are welcome to make their case. All the points lie on a line - and there is only one way to describe that single line.

 

Celestial and astronavigation prove irrefutably that the Earth is spherical (yes, yes an oblate spheroid etc).

 

All it takes is measuring the position of the stars above your head, and getting a friend to do it at the same time too. This CANNOT be the subject of a conspiracy - just organize it with a friend, go into your garden and do it - the Illuminati aren't going to stop you doing it. Really.

 

To pretend the world is otherwise is to ignore reality - to be ignorant.

 

There is no other way of putting it.

 

The earth is not flat, but PGW is going to insist because lots of people are ignorant of that fact the issue is subject to debate.

 

It isn't.

 

People are just ignorant of facts they can get for themselves really easily.

[paul's got wright]

 

You don't know me and you're clearly a bit disturbed by such notions as freedom of the peaceful mind and the confidence to be honest. I just used what you wrote poorly, in a positive way. If you have a problem with something i have posted please feel free to discuss it. I just dont see the point of coming here to attempt toridicule, only to fail miserably. What does that do for you or this thread?

 

Since you don't know me either, how do you know that I'm disturbed by notions such as freedom of the peaceful mind and the confidence to be honest ? I'm not disturbed by either, and I don't believe that you're exhibiting either.

 

Again, you're trying to assign some sort of nobility of cause to your sophistry, just like in the "Babylon wins" thread, as if the validity of your opinions are unchallengeable because of the "peacefulness of your mind", a perspective that again suggests you think of yourself like a special prophet delivering an unquestionable message.

 

It's the same argument you recycle on every thread, calling me out for ridiculing your opinions, whilst routinely dismissing the opinions of others on the grounds that they're not as "special" as you when you're unable to deal with an argument. You've derailed so many threads and so many useful contributions with this "holier than thou" routine, that you have no right to question anyone's contribution.

 

Your opinions aren't "facts" and can be questioned. If you need some kind of altered mental state to believe in them, it's a good indication that they're delusional, not rational.

 

i'm reading what you post. i'm taking note of your beliefs. i sense you are upset for no reason. you don't seem to like this thread or the facts posted here. you at least live up to your moniker, though it's not one i'd chose for a public forum.

 

i have no intention of arguing with you or upsetting you in any way. i just post what is relevant to the thread. if you'd like to discuss any of my posts i'd be happy to. just try not to get upset about it. if you can. and if all else fails just remember that you've got unicorns in ye pockets. life's good x

[paul's got wright]

Manxy, what you are saying is sophistry.

 

You could equally claim you are "in fact" a 10 foot tall zombie octopus, but only in another dimension.

 

That though is irrelevant if you are being asked what you look like in our dimensions - it would be disingenuous of you to pretend a photograph, or a description, of you doesn't accurately portrays you as a perfectly normal person and not a 10 foot zombie octopus. Really. Are you going to argue about this?

 

We are attempting to describe the shape of the earth in normal 3 dimensional space.

 

Measuring it with tools that work in our world.

 

If anyone looks up and sees a star right above their heads - 90 degrees straight up. Then that IS the angle to the star from that point. Claiming that it might be 20 degrees in another dimension is not relevant. You can quibble whether it is 89.999998 or 91.2 degrees, and error bands are hugely important, but that does not change the fact that there is a star basically directly above your head.

 

On any particular night you can find such a star. This isn't sophistry - it is a real observation you can make.

 

Now if someone else is elsewhere on the Earth then that star will not be directly overhead for them.

 

Do you believe this?

 

This person will be able to measure the lowest angle the star is positioned up from the horizon and, say, how far around horizon that point is from North.

 

Again this is a real measurement.

 

Evidence.

 

The position and angle of the star will be different for the second person, and they can use these different measurements to calculate how far away they are from you with the star above your head.

 

Again I ask you - do you believe this or not?

 

The maths for working this out isn't that complicated.

 

Astronomers, Sailors and navigators have been doing it for thousands of years.

 

Now if you have a star that is directly above your head, and your friend is on the same longitude as you, for every degree of latitude they move away from you the star will drop one degree in the sky, until when they are 90 degrees away from you the star will have set below the horizon.

 

This is a fact. Do you believe this?

 

You can quibble a tiny bit, because atmospheric refraction will add in about 1/2 a degree of error to this, and the abberation of light about 40'' of error parallax even less than that, heck yes even the oblateness of the world will result in the actual results being a tiny bit out etc.

 

These are analogous to a photograph of you being pixelated - the fact the picture is made up of blue, red and green dots if you looked at it really really closely doesn't mean a photo of you isn't a photo of you.

 

Now this is the nub of the issue - how can this fact be explained. Why does the angle of a star, viewed from a line of longitude, change by 1 degree for every degree of latitude you move?

 

Again this is a fact - it is why we use longitude and latitude to work out our position on the earth. And if PGW is going to go - I don't know if this is a fact, so I'm going to ignore it - get a sextant or a telescope and stop being ignorant. Your ignorance is not a justification to deny facts that you can verify for yourself.

 

You can do this anywhere on Earth

 

There is only one way to explain this - and if anyone disagrees they are welcome to make their case. All the points lie on a line - and there is only one way to describe that single line.

 

Celestial and astronavigation prove irrefutably that the Earth is spherical (yes, yes an oblate spheroid etc).

 

All it takes is measuring the position of the stars above your head, and getting a friend to do it at the same time too. This CANNOT be the subject of a conspiracy - just organize it with a friend, go into your garden and do it - the Illuminati aren't going to stop you doing it. Really.

 

To pretend the world is otherwise is to ignore reality - to be ignorant.

 

There is no other way of putting it.

 

The earth is not flat, but PGW is going to insist because lots of people are ignorant of that fact the issue is subject to debate.

 

It isn't.

 

People are just ignorant of facts they can get for themselves really easily.

we'll see x

[Chinahand]

if you'd like to discuss any of my posts i'd be happy to.

That isn't what you said when I asked you to discuss the issues. Quite the opposite, you refused to.

 

But just in case you've changed you mind, I'll ask again:

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat?

 

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

[paul's got wright]

 

if you'd like to discuss any of my posts i'd be happy to.

That isn't what you said when I asked you to discuss the issues. Quite the opposite, you refused to.

 

But just in case you've changed you mind, I'll ask again:

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat?

 

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

 

i don't think the world's flat china i've told you that. why don't you listen? there's no evidence that can convince me of that. it's not flat where i live nor where i have been. the debate is whether the world is a ball or not! i don't know the shape of the whole earth, i'm sorry i am not able to verify that for you. i'm enjoying the education and research. peacefully. some of you are intent on just being mean to people. i prefer to be nice x

[Chinahand]

Evasion as ever - you know full well this debate is about the bulk properties of the earth - whether the local morphology of hills, valleys, mountains and plains are overlaid onto a much larger spherical surface, or a flat one.

 

Deliberately conflating the issue of local morphology with the bulk structure is pedantry.

 

But anyway I'll re-word my questions to try to see if you will answer them:

 

So PGW what do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence or argument made by those claiming the world is flat isn't a sphere with a radius of approximately 6300km?

What is it they are actually saying which makes you think this "debate" is actually showing our well-evidenced and understood knowledge that the world is a sphere is actually mistaken?

[manxy]

I agree with PGW that there are a lot of 'mean' people about and probably why I do not trust scientists, professors, politicians etc as I see them as people who may strive for perfection or self preservation, but willing to cut corners or allow power and corruption from others or themselves to dictate the pace.