Flat earth debate

[waterboy 2.0]

Once you go flat you never come back. 'devil box' interesting term... Lol

[bardo]

On ‎5‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 0:26 AM, Change said:

idunno if its ironic or moronic that flat earthers happily use mobile phone technology that requires the use of functional satellite while simultaneously asserting ludicrous claims. 

 

Fwiw, this thread isnt a debate, debates present evidence then argue for or against the validity of such evidence. This thread was just the OP claiming to perform calculations that lead to his/her conclusion that the world was flat, but when questioned to provide those calculation for the rest of the world to see, he/she linked a youtube video and admitted they didn't do any maths. Flat earthers constantly demanding proof is an indication that they aren't prepared to put in the effort to obtain proof for themselves. If you wanna provide evidence to support the claim the earth is flat, then please do. But the burden of proof should be on the person asserting the extraordinary claim, not the other way around. All you hippies love to bang on about how important having an open mind is, but please be careful, if your mind opens to far your brain will fall out. 

 

 

Cell phones transmit via land based towers - http://www.getgds.com/blog/cellular-vs.-satellite-understanding-the-differences .

I have not once said the earth is flat but that I question the reality presented to us, I did say I am leaning toward an electro magnetic plane. Prob a simulation of some type, definition- (the action of pretending; deception. "clever simulation that's good enough to trick you)

 

I would never claim to know the definitive answer to what this all is, I don't have the haughtiness for that but it is fun to speculate and there is lots of fodder here for the curious. here is a quote from a nasa employee Rich Terrile  -Quite frankly if we are not living in a simulation it is an extraordinarily unlikely circumstance. Not that quotes mean or prove anything.

 

On ‎5‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 4:24 AM, paradox said:

no way WB, thats definitely taken with a fish-eye lense..

 

honestly, this is the most retarded 'debate' i've almost ever witnessed..  seven & half billion people are entitled to an opinion of course..  doesn't mean your opinion isn't profoundly retarded, even if thousands of of other loudly typing retarded people agree with you..

 

(disclaimer:  i'm a government shill)

That's a very negative and non productive statement, a terrible way to inspire truth and the pursuit thereof, all tho i believe your intentions were not to inspire truth but to insult those who question your truth.

On ‎5‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 2:42 AM, waterboy 2.0 said:

seems legit

 

 

How about this one  or this one   this one    Not very consistent and I don't feel they look or seem very legit. A good artist could paint photo realistic images such as these.

This pic looks cool     But who took the pic ?   Who took this one ?

[waterboy 2.0]

LOL...some of you really crack me up at times

Unlike some of you I dare say, I was actually raised with a core "belief system" that the earth was flat

(to be simplistic)

 

A BELIEF SYSTEM....I've found many don't like belief systems challenged.....its uncomfortable

 

keep entertaining me fellas.... I am waiting to see who stamps their feet first

 

 

[bardo]

On ‎5‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 0:26 AM, Change said:

 

 

 If you wanna provide evidence to support the claim the earth is flat, then please do. But the burden of proof should be on the person asserting the extraordinary claim, not the other way around. All you hippies love to bang on about how important having an open mind is, but please be careful, if your mind opens to far your brain will fall out. 

 

 

The flat earth theory and spherical theory are both extraordinary and worth questioning, as well as a myriad of other theories. When we are told we are spinning approx. 1600km/hr and the earth orbits the sun at 30km/sec 107, 830 km/hr and the solar system moves approx. 828,000 km/hr I am gonna question that because I think those claims fit the definition of extraordinary.

Gravity is another that fits this claim that fits this definition , example why, when gravity can hold hundreds of thousands of tones of water down but a blade of grass grows against it.  Density is easy to understand and provable with empirical methods and makes more sense to me.

Also I see water flattens/levels out, that is what I can see and observe, empirical. I have never seen a model or experiment that shows/replicates how water on the outside of an object can stick to the surface while spinning?

[Yeti101]

36 minutes ago, bardo said:

I have not once said the earth is flat but that I question the reality presented to us, I did say I am leaning toward an electro magnetic plane. Prob a simulation of some type, definition- (the action of pretending; deception. "clever simulation that's good enough to trick you)https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/0DuEDtRMYMhia-IyhsEc-AYLjzo=/1170x0/2016/02/01/5ebe33b2-28ec-40fa-b8df-a3f7c7d1a450/unmoonearth.jpg&key=77121e499d0415e518cfd96a191438bde6126cb28267235bb8ae449fd36849e0

 

Well look, if we want to go for ultimate flatness, just go with Susskind's Holographic Principle - that the entire universe is two-dimensional information on the cosmological event horizon - can't get any flatter than that!

[bardo]

17 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

LOL...some of you really crack me up at times

Unlike some of you I dare say, I was actually raised with a core "belief system" that the earth was flat

(to be simplistic)

 

A BELIEF SYSTEM....I've found many don't like belief systems challenged.....its uncomfortable

 

keep entertaining me fellas.... I am waiting to see who stamps their feet first

 

 

Lol get some popcorn and enjoy the show : )

All I truly know as far as I have and can observe is that my body is in slow decay so I find this world  and the arguments therein somewhat incidental but a great way to amuse and entertain for the duration, most my energy goes into in no particular order

1. preparing my spirit for departure although I can not be certain what that is exactly but my process, methods and preparation well It enlivens me : )

2. To try be a positive effect on this realm and to share, care and love, to not judge or put people down and when I shake up or question things which I do very often I try not to respond with an ad hominem so if anyone gets personally offended it is not due to what I said but there reaction to what was said or at least the interpretation of what was said. Plus it is hard to speak definitive meaning when most words have a double-entendre.

3. My number 3 is something that can not be defined because it is mine and can not be communicated : )

[Yeti101]

21 minutes ago, bardo said:

3. My number 3 is something that can not be defined because it is mine and can not be communicated : )

 

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[bardo]

17 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

 

Well look, if we want to go for ultimate flatness, just go with Susskind's Holographic Principle - that the entire universe is two-dimensional information on the cosmological event horizon - can't get any flatter than that!

The most rigorous realization of the holographic principle is the AdS/CFT correspondence by Juan Maldacena. However, J.D. Brown and Marc Henneaux had rigorously proved already in 1986, that the asymptotic symmetry of 2+1 dimensional gravity gives rise to a Virasoro algebra, whose corresponding quantum theory is a 2-dimensional conformal field theory.^[16] 

 

1986 years I was born, in basic numerology = 6 and 2+1 = 3, three sixes.

Just joking (or am I) nuh sounds interesting, I know the basics of the theory but have not invested much time into it. Maybe another day

 

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by bardo

[bardo]

17 hours ago, Yeti101 said:

 

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Precisely : ) cannot be spoken of

[paradox]

i'm not really following this thread much & haven't read much of what you have said bardo.  i will jut reply to what you said to me directly.. 

 

i don't possess any 'truth' & my intention wasn't to insult anyone in particular but to take the piss out of this so called 'debate' as a whole because it is truly retarded.

there is no 'spherical earth theory' no one who isn't ignorant has ever claimed that the earth is a sphere.  thankfully, if you don't get what i mean by that i'm not going to explain it because as i said this 'debate' is boring & for all but the most obscure reasons, pretty pointless

[paradox]

6 hours ago, bardo said:

I have never seen a model or experiment that shows/replicates how water on the outside of an object can stick to the surface while spinning?

 

bro, it's called gravity...  & do you realize that gravity is the weakest force in nature?  you need a relatively huge amount of accumulated mass, like you know, say, a planet... for gravity to have enough force to out-compete the electric charge of molecules like um... water..

 

edit:  this is also the reason why a blade of grass can stand up on the surface of the earth, because the structural integrity of the blade of grass is just enough to outcompete the profoundly weak force of gravity.  if the earth was twice the mass of what it is, the blade of grass would have to be twice as structurally sound

Edited June 6, 2017 by paradox

[ThunderIdeal]

1 hour ago, paradox said:

 

 

there is no 'spherical earth theory' 

 

:D

[bardo]

On ‎6‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 2:38 AM, paradox said:

i'm not really following this thread much & haven't read much of what you have said bardo.  i will jut reply to what you said to me directly.. 

 

i don't possess any 'truth' & my intention wasn't to insult anyone in particular but to take the piss out of this so called 'debate' as a whole because it is truly retarded.

 

there is no 'spherical earth theory' no one who isn't ignorant has ever claimed that the earth is a sphere.  thankfully, if you don't get what i mean by that i'm not going to explain it because as i said this 'debate' is boring & for all but the most obscure reasons, pretty pointless

 

On ‎6‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 2:52 AM, paradox said:

 

bro, it's called gravity...  & do you realize that gravity is the weakest force in nature?  you need a relatively huge amount of accumulated mass, like you know, say, a planet... for gravity to have enough force to out-compete the electric charge of molecules like um... water..

 

edit:  this is also the reason why a blade of grass can stand up on the surface of the earth, because the structural integrity of the blade of grass is just enough to outcompete the profoundly weak force of gravity.  if the earth was twice the mass of what it is, the blade of grass would have to be twice as structurally sound

You don't possess any truth? then what is the source of your stand point?

I thought that the electric charge is what holds atoms together in the case of water hydrogen & oxygen but I don't understand how this has anything to do with my question? Your answer sounds abstract to me.

What about upside down tomato planters , does this not go against geotropism? and if so then does it not give some kind of validity to my questions?

Or is this just the type of question a "retard" would ask, that's a rhetorical question so need to answer.

Maybe I am just uneducated in regard to this subject but when entertaining the flat earth model gravity is not required at all and becomes density.

 

If you think this debate and/or subject is retarded then surely you have some standpoint which you think is true in order to derive that opinion?

 

If there is no spheroid theory than what idea are you using to justify your course of action within this topic/discussion ? To me it is a theory because a large portion of the information and proofs presented to me on the topic I can not verify and there for to me fits the definition of theory.

A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation , if I have not had information verified than what is it ?

 

I may appear silly or stupid for presenting such things but I am not what I appear there for care little on how I may appear.

 

You say if I don't know what you mean than you will not explain it, I feel you and I are very different people as I would want to share my knowledge especially if it can bring illumination of some sort but your statement sounds like or feels like it presents some kind of superiority over the "retards" and that to me seems like an ego driven point.

 

Also I do not like the word retard or retarded being used in a derogatory manner but that is beside the point and digressing from the topic and has little relevance to anything, just seems an unnecessary and lazy way to communicate.

[waterboy 2.0]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[bardo]

23 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

True, maybe I should be quite, I prob got a bit of the dunning kruger effect going on here lol

 

[paradox]

21 hours ago, bardo said:

 

You don't possess any truth? then what is the source of your stand point?

 

 

i don't believe in truth.  i believe in being educated as broadly as possible while also understanding enough about each area of education not to be flaky in your understanding of particular issues which rely on a broad education to have any meaningful understanding of.

 

having a huge amount of very complicated (and some not so complicated) data that makes an idea profoundly plausible does not make that idea 'the truth'

 

but an idea regarding a rather complicated set of process', that is based on a seeming total ignorance of a broad set of extremely relevant areas of education is just boring and pointless. 

 

i wouldn't call either of those ideas 'the truth' but one is a good idea with a lot of good reasons to regard it as a good idea and the other is retarded & boring unless your idea of interesting is to believe in an idea without much of a good reason to do so..

[bardo]

17 hours ago, paradox said:

 

i don't believe in truth.  i believe in being educated as broadly as possible while also understanding enough about each area of education not to be flaky in your understanding of particular issues which rely on a broad education to have any meaningful understanding of.

 

having a huge amount of very complicated (and some not so complicated) data that makes an idea profoundly plausible does not make that idea 'the truth'

 

but an idea regarding a rather complicated set of process', that is based on a seeming total ignorance of a broad set of extremely relevant areas of education is just boring and pointless. 

 

i wouldn't call either of those ideas 'the truth' but one is a good idea with a lot of good reasons to regard it as a good idea and the other is retarded & boring unless your idea of interesting is to believe in an idea without much of a good reason to do so..

Well I like to gain knowledge more so than understandings derived through education, education means- the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.

Systematic means- done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

I am more of an empirical type learner.

And that is not my "idea" of interesting, interesting means- arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention. All things within this experience (life) fits that definition for me.

Anyhow there is probably no point in us discussing or arguing any further, we have both stated our points and I believe both points carry some cogency and I am sure we both feel our view as having some validity from our own perspectives.

On say saying that I bid you a good day sir and will not drag or encourage you to participate in this "boring & retarded" debate any further.

[paradox]

Honestly dude, this is some dumb shit. Whatever way you want to justify it. The difference is that you are so invested in it you are willing to spend much more time trying to justify your position

[bardo]

 

17 hours ago, paradox said:

Honestly dude, this is some dumb shit. Whatever way you want to justify it. The difference is that you are so invested in it you are willing to spend much more time trying to justify your position

Invested in what? And what is my position that I am trying to justify ?

[paradox]

That the flat earth idea is not retarded? 

[Change]

[paradox]

I have spent a long time in the past making the same points you are making regarding education. I get it man but unless you are capable of superseding Newtonian and einsteinian physics then haven't got much leg to stand on when trying to explain that they aren't extremely valuable tools for describing the physical world around us, which is what the flat earth concept would assume if it had any coherency at all.  The education system itself is deeply flawed & we have to be very careful who we accept external knowledge from but education in general is fundamental to Human development, without it we are essentially language-less apes. At best, without it our thoughts exist within a vacuum, an echo chamber of our own personal delusions.

 

but honestly I don't know anything about your personal ideas bardo, I have hardly read your posts here & know nothing else about you. My comments on this conversation being retarded were not aimed at you but to the conversation as a whole because it is very retarded.

[bardo]

18 hours ago, paradox said:

That the flat earth idea is not retarded? 

I think the flat earth idea has potential to be a great thing in the way that it encourages many people to think outside of the box and could lead to great personal/internal and external discoveries or realizations.

17 hours ago, paradox said:

I have spent a long time in the past making the same points you are making regarding education. I get it man but unless you are capable of superseding Newtonian and einsteinian physics then haven't got much leg to stand on when trying to explain that they aren't extremely valuable tools for describing the physical world around us, which is what the flat earth concept would assume if it had any coherency at all.  The education system itself is deeply flawed & we have to be very careful who we accept external knowledge from but education in general is fundamental to Human development, without it we are essentially language-less apes. At best, without it our thoughts exist within a vacuum, an echo chamber of our own personal delusions.

 

but honestly I don't know anything about your personal ideas bardo, I have hardly read your posts here & know nothing else about you. My comments on this conversation being retarded were not aimed at you but to the conversation as a whole because it is very retarded.

Well said, I can not argue with you on any of those points unless I was to be a prick and knit pick.

I don't agree that a conversation can be retarded but I see how ideas conveyed there within may retard a conversation from progressing, Oh wait I am being a prick and knit picking : )

Thanks for the thoughtful response and all the best Paradox.

 

[bardo]

So any ideas why this has become so easily and widely accepted all of a sudden ?

Maybe we are in pending doom from an asteroid or maybe the ozone is depleted or an ice age, global warming etc and having or trying to have people believe in flat earth may help minimise panic ? or an experiment to test gullibility or to see if a divide can be created through newly excepted ideologies that conflict with dogma and measure the effect ? Or a failure of the education system?

It is interesting how this thing is spreading in popularity and so suddenly, So any thoughts about that ?

 

[waterboy 2.0]

Fuck I am laughing