Jump to content
The Corroboree

paradox

Trusted Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,125

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Posts posted by paradox

  2. Posted

    As far as my thoughts & feelings go, these days I tend to hang somewhere between bill hicks' point that it's just a ride & George carlins sentiment that he no longer has a stake in the outcome.. 

     

    As carlin puts it, we're pretty much circling the drain.. The planet itself is a volatile place that goes through vast changes constantly over long periods of time.. It'll be fine until the sun expands & wipes it out just as everything comes & goes, but seems we're pretty much fucked for the foreseeable future, but who knows.. there is still profound beauty everywhere you care to look.. even in the deepest darkness.. So live as best you can, take care of the poor souls around you, be the best person you are capable of being, try to be better, keep your fingers crossed & enjoy the ride..

     

    tripping balls about the crippling uncertainty just cripples us even more..  So I think it's best to try as much as possible to see the beauty in the madness

     

     

    • Like 7

  3. Posted · Edited by paradox

    You're a good good egg thunderhorse, full power to you bro..

     

    I'll just reply to one thing you mentioned about there being a firm belief.. There's no firm belief at all from where I'm looking., it's just that the evidence from so many sources is just profoundly overwhelming.. There is an unbelievable number of natural phenomena that would simply not  be remotely possible if the earth were flat.. & earth sciences describe these process' in the most elegant & deeply sensical ways & it all ties in together to describe the physical nature of our planet so eloquently.. 

     

    It's understandable that many people aren't broadly knowledgable about all these complex aspects of natural science but it remains that if people are ignorant of these things then that's what they are.. Ignorant.  There's many reasons why people are ignorant.. Not saying I am not ignorant of many things btw..

    • Like 1

  4. Posted · Edited by paradox

    37 minutes ago, ThunderIdeal said:

    modern science is doubtless correct about the shape of the earth but could be failing to properly put myths in context. 

     

    absolutely no doubt about that i think..  i feel mythology generally is a multilayered encoded vehicle for the transmission of knowledge about many different aspects of reality & the complexities of the human experience & the meanings were generally intended to be peeled back layer by layer at successive stages of a persons development as they grow up & mature through life..  The mistake modern science tends to make when analyzing ancient mythology is to interpret them as some kind of simple, literal stories which are meant to mean nothing more than the physical content the stories present..  as though they are nothing but the most basic kind of children's book like 'see john run.' 

     

    Obviously this is one of the major flaws of a purely scientific perspective..  to disregard anything which is not literal..  But it must be said that it is also the strength of science as a discipline for interpreting the physical universe..  It's not a problem as long as you understand there is more to reality than that.

     

     

    • Like 2

  5. Posted

    3 hours ago, ☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ said:

     what about pre biblical descriptions?

     

    I'm not saying our modern civilization doesn't suck in many ways & many modern assumptions about the nature of reality are not extremely flawed..  But when it comes to the physics regarding the basic structural geometry of planets, are you saying that a few remaining fragments of information from ancient largely preliterate & technologically primitive peoples are a more reliable source of scientific knowledge than our technological, space age, physics obsessed scientific civilization?  

     

     

    • Like 1

  7. Posted · Edited by paradox

    technically this is definitely not possible...  but just for interest sake, check out this daleys forum thread which has heaps of anecdotal accounts of people who seem to be pretty convinced this happens with citrus..

     

    https://www.daleysfruit.com.au/forum/fruit-treesdon-webercitrus-springs-fl/

     

    edit:  though a lot of them are people just saying their oranges taste like lemons haha by which i guess they just mean they are sour as shit..  not necessarily actually lemon flavored 

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:

    There are manifold indicators for electrical interaction between planets/moons.  Not physically touching (thats an understatement isnt it.....) but not completely isolated either.

     

    Yes of course. How does that in any way explain what dwr is very lazily Not explaining.  Even objects which appear to be in complete physical contact are only interacting electrically, albeit on a sub-microscopic level

     

     

    10 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

    yeah they are, someday you will see it

     

    Dude, you should write a book, your ideas are mind blowing, I could read one liners like this for hours.  Just fascinating.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    On 02/08/2017 at 11:18 AM, DualWieldRake said:

    I'll try to explain it.

    If you take 2 spheres touching eachother and 1 is pushing the other, the pushed one is bound to roll around it to the other side.

    When it keeps beeing pushed like in the case of expansion, it stays rolling around

     

    ok but the planets & moons & sun are not touching each other & are not perpetually expanding so i still have no idea what your getting at

  12. Posted · Edited by paradox

    On 11 February 2016 at 8:05 AM, SayN said:

     

    The weirdest bit was Tarantino's token role alongside John Jarratt (I guess he's just taking the piss out of his own movie).

     

     

    I have a theory about that scene.. It is a reference/nod of respect to Rolf de heer's film The Tracker with David Gulpilil.. 

     

    In the scene Tarantino is Australian. Obviously the whole theme is black slaves becoming free.. Which mirrors the final scene of The Tracker. The way Django rides away into the distance on horseback while shirtless.. It is straight from the final scene of The Tracker.. Exactly the same vibe & very similar camera shot.. The fact Tarantino's character is Australian is to make the reference clear.. That's my theory anyway.. 

     

    Tarantino is well known for referencing films/directors he respects.. 

     

    & by the way, The Tracker is a really great film, Archie Roach did the sound track.. Is brilliant.

    • Like 4

  13. Posted · Edited by paradox

    edit: i thought i had quoted siks3 with the following -

    "The only way you can seperate two zones of pressure is with a solid space e.g the firmament aka the dome. Like a light bulb."

     

     

    earths atmosphere is a dense cloud of gas molecules, those molecules have mass, therefore are drawn by gravity to the surface of the planet.  at sea level the atmosphere is at it's densest & the density of gas molecules gets lower & lower, the further you ascend in altitude, therefore the pressure also gets lower & lower the higher you go, the density of gas molecules & subsequent air pressure tapers off gradually & continually until there are no air molecules at all & you have only vacuum, there isn't some mystical boundary line with a vacuum on one side & full sea level atmospheric pressure on the other.  The density of gas in the upper atmosphere is so low that gravity is able to overcome the vacuum.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    Fair enough bro

     

    just for me, the way people often react to this kind of banter is a bit of a point of contention..

     

    Our prosperous, over protective, subliminally oppressive society has produced a pandemic of mental/emotional fragility & physical incapability that is really disturbing considering that it seems our civilisation is more or less collapsing around us & there is an entire generation that is seemingly completely unequipped to deal with the kind of change that is coming on any level.

     

    From my perspective I have not slandered anybody in this thread. I have made fun of an idea in a mostly light hearted but blunt way.  I don't understand why people have such trouble separating ideas from the people who are discussing those ideas..

     

    I'm probably the strange one but to me, that kind of banter, in a weird way is actually a show of respect. Most people will think thats ridiculous i'm sure but thats how I see it.

    I'm a very sensitive person, at least in my own fantasy world in my head I feel qualified to say that I think people need to harden the fuck up & defend their ideas rather than their hurt feelings. Granted, a lot people should do just the opposite too

     

    Way too many luke warm, mediocre discussions get had these days & they never really go anywhere. Everyone is afraid to say what they really think or afraid to be called out for offending someone or afraid of being belittled for their ideas. People might think my style only perpetuates that but I think that bs, life is gritty, whether you grew up in sheltered suburb in the first world or not, shit is going to get real & i feel it's a good thing to learn to speak and act with a bit of intelligence & passion.  But again, thats just me, i'm usually pretty misunderstood in these things

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    regardless of how anyone feels 2xb, do my words really have anything to do with anything?  I'm just another jerk off babbling on the internet.

     

    you seem to have said you basically agree with the flat earth idea.  you obviously care enough to be posting at all, so instead of distracting the issue & making it about my naughty words why not give a positive contribution & explain why you are not retarded for doing so? 

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    Just now, bardo said:

    It doesn't but i feel the bond that is between us all is strengthened with compassion and respect for one another, i believe anything can be expressed with this as a parameter.

     

    yeah i get you, i respect that a lot.  but i also have a strong drive in me to say things as i see it.  most of my life i have been a very sensitive person that is very careful about what i say lest i hurt anyone..  i have come to feel that this can be a strength but is also a huge weakness & not always the best way to go.  In my experience the most interesting discussions are the ones where people speak bluntly & honestly without fear of offending but with the civility to not intentionally be offensive.  As long as my intention is not to hurt anyone then the reactions of others to my words is only their responsibility, as i feel my own reactions to anything out there in the world is my responsibility also..  But sometimes perhaps i don't always judge this perfectly.  i probably need to work on balancing better, what you are saying about compassionate speech and my feelings about honest fearless expression

     

    But this is a whole philosophical discussion in itself that perhaps we don't need to go into here

    • Like 5

  18. Posted

    and i'm sorry for too often using not very constructive terms like retarded and stupid (even though i can't deny i feel those terms are appropriate).  i'm also sorry if i gave the impression i was singling you out and attacking you personally, i never meant that, i don't think you are a spokesman for flat-earthers.  i was just using your comments as a launchpad to the things i've said.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    interesting insequent, i'll check it out. 

     

    i agree it's hard to know what peoples real tone is in a text discussion which is why i don't let myself get personally offended by text on a screen from people i have never met.  maybe thats also the reason i don't worry too much about offending people either..  maybe thats my bad..

    2XB, debate or not, why is a bunch of text criticizing an idea so offensive?  why does every conversation these days seem to come down to whether someones feelings are hurt rather than the content?  i mean, i know i have been blunt & if you don't know me you might think i'm angry & mean or something, i know i have said dismissive things which may distract from any point i have but i'm not trying to be unfair here.

     

    where can you go these days to really nut out ideas.. or criticize ideas as it may be?  it seems the philosophy section here is as good of a place as many.. The willingness of people to fearlessly engage in difficult & complex discussion is always why i loved the corroboree.  or maybe i'm just being sentimental..

     

    anyway 2XB, from your post it would seem that you agree with the flat earth idea.  please for the love of humanity, whether your avatar is a manky old bong or not, humor me & please take some time & explain to me why. 

    • Like 2

  20. Posted · Edited by paradox

    Bro, you are telling me to stop posting but you keep replying to my posts..  i'm torn..

    I hate to continue to repeat myself but the thread title states that this a debate..  If that is the case & you continue to defend an idea that i am arguing against then is it wrong for me to continue to reply to you when you address me? 

     

    if what i am saying is invalid why not just explain why rather than just getting upset that i have offended you?  seeing as you are taking the time to reply to me..

     

     

    3 hours ago, bardo said:

    We are not talking about a leaf we are talking about flat earth idea, It is a discussion about the shape, reality and nature of earth and the cosmos, when ever talk begins you are right there with your that's stupid responses.

     

    i have been talking about the thread topic the whole time.  is my analogy completely lost on you?  what in my leaf analogy does not address the shape, reality & nature of the cosmos?  i have said more than flat earth is stupid, that is just the main crux of my point. 

     

    i know my opinions are nothing but my own, saying you are upset & making out like i think my opinions should be followed by everyone is not a good reason for me not to express them.

     

    I'm sure my opinions are annoying to some people but i don't think i am not adding anything interesting to this thread

     

    edit: usually you'd hope an analogy speaks for itself..  but my point is that in that analogy you can replace 'leaf' with anything whatsoever, including the shape of the planet..  i am agreeing with you, it is very interesting to ponder such things..  my point is simply that it has nothing to do with the earth being flat..  but it seems like you are emotional now so i understand if you are not really getting what i am saying

     

     

     

     

  21. Posted

    to attempt to explain why i think it's not a particularly relevant idea to discuss.

     

    if we are not debating whether flat earth is a relevant idea, this thread could just as easily be called - is a leaf (or any object you like) shaped the way it is shaped?

     

    Yes, it is shaped the way it is shaped, but the more closely you look, you will see that the edge of the leaf is actually an hyper complex fractal interface of infinite length, it's not leaf shaped at all and the further you go you will see there is no physical boundary to the so called leaf at all. 

     

    This seems to be the basic premise of all this philosophizing being had & that is cool, i love that discussion, it's endlessly interesting.  you can ask that question about anything. it is part of the nature of the physical world.  nothing is as it seems.. the deeper you look, the more complex it gets until it isn't even close to the initial assumptions you made based on the limits of your nervous system..

     

    but despite this, the leaf is still shaped like a leaf, it's both things simaltaneously, because we are rendering the is-ness of the leaf as a object we can understand through language & you cannot describe the infinite complexity of things with language.. you can only describe a relatively low resolution model of an object, so using language to decode the earth into a meaningful structure we can relate to, the earth is generally sphere like, it is as sphere-like as a human body is human-like, without language it is an unknowable fractal phenomena of infinite complexity.

    but where does it being flat come into this?  it doesn't.  there is no good reason to bring that idea into this philosophical discussion except as one of profoundly many un-plausable thoughts you might choose to imagine, which to me makes it not a particularly relevant topic of discussion except to discuss why it is not a very intelligent idea


     

    i feel that using flat earth as a jumping block into these extremely interesting ideas about reality is giving undue credence to some extremely low quality ideas & for no one to call it out reflects poorly on this forum, but thats just my trip...

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

     

    1 hour ago, bardo said:

    And yet you are shitting on people who want to learn and are expressing views/isdeas

     

    no i'm not, i'm criticizing ideas i think are shit, not shitting on people.  i'm not trying to attack you and make you feel uncomfortable i'm trying to have a real discussion about this, granted i have lacked self control and been a bit of a douche.  usually i lack the motivation to get involved in bad discussions like this without bringing a bit of that into it.. sorry

     

    good discussion is great & i applaud you for being a good natured person that doesn't like the way i am expressing myself, i just can't help it, i somehow got involved & this topic just deserves to be called out for what it is. 

     

    maybe when you feel uncomfortable you can remember the title of the thread says flat earth debate, not an innocent and fun thread about flat earth. 

     

    maybe i'm not getting you properly but the context i am reading your posts is in the context of this topic of this thread

     

     

     

     

  23. Posted

    it's cool man i don't have any issue with anything i have read that you have said. 

     

    i'm not sure what mathematical parallels you mean, the laws of physics which govern the quantum universe couldn't be more different from those that govern the solar system. are you referring to some mathematics regarding the fractal nature of the universe on multiple (possibly infinite) levels of scale? 

     

     

     

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, bardo said:

    Awesome thought : ) Maybe the sun is the nucleus and we/the planets are electrons, as far as we can see is all just in an atom, we are one atom that links to many others to form an entity that is our god.

    Maybe we are just characters in some ones dream, the big bang was the thought/spark that generated us and all we can see.

    I like the your idea of atoms, very cool : )

     

    that is an interesting way to think about a possibly infinite universe.  but what do interesting ponderances like this have to do with the earth being flat?

     

    maybe we are just figments of somethings dream.  maybe the entire universe is just the internal structure of our own consciousness & we are walking around inside our own heads.  maybe our solar system is an atom in the brain of some universal consciousness.  maybe the entire universe is a simulation

     

    maybe a lot of things.  existence is a very weird thing.  but what does any of that have to do with the earth being flat & how does anything like that substantiate flat earth as an idea worth pursuing? even if the entire physical universe is nothing but a complete illusory figment of our mind.  what does any of that have to do with the earth being flat?

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    3 hours ago, bardo said:

    If you say what I said is bullshit than you have to elaborate or how can I have a rebuttal ?

    Just claiming something as bullshit is a non statement, I am completely cool with accepting my statement as "bullshit" if there is something worthy to substantiate that view.

     

    well it is technically a statement, he has stated that in his opinion what you said is bullshit.  he's just being honest with you.  there is so much to substantiate his view that flat earth idea is not a very relevant topic to discuss.  overwhelmingly, ridiculously so..  yet there is basically nothing whatsoever to substantiate the idea that the earth is flat.  So if you are saying the idea is not a crock of shit, the onus is on you to substantiate why it is not a crock of shit & you or anyone else has not even come close to doing that.  It's no one elses responsibility to educate you on something you're ignorant about.

     

    unless you are just saying that it's relevant to discuss from a purely sociological perspective then maybe you would have a bit of a point.  it's fascinating how ignorance can propagate en mass this way.  It's just another symptom of the strange social experiments going on in this day and age as we try to figure out a social landscape which transforms quicker than we can begin to comprehend.

    • Like 2
×