Topic: Flat Earth - page 518. (Read 1095196 times)
Oh please, don't involve religion with this.
well i didn't see any picture of Earth with satellites and stars.
It is either only Earth and everything is black around or it is some kind of picture for wallpaper.
It is either only Earth and everything is black around or it is some kind of picture for wallpaper.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
Just more stupidity from spinning ball earth believers.
Just grant me access to Antarctica to freely explore and do the research. And I will leave that bogus rocket with a trip to "space" to you. Do we have a deal ball earth believers?
Btw...space travel is impossible. Those rockets launches are without a crew. No one sits in that bogus rocket. They know it is impossible. Rockets go up and come down crashing into the ocean.
Science is the result of using the scientific method to arrive at the truth. It starts with a testable hypothesis, then that hypothesis gets tested until it fails. The tests are not with words and philosophy, they are with experiments that have quantitative outcomes. The fallibility of humans in this situation is the equivalent of a single trader trying to insert a false trade into the bitcoin block. The community of scientists, and more importantly, the documented results from multiple independent tests, do not let the erroneous claims last very long. On that basis surely you must see how colossally impossible it would be for example the thousands of NASA employees to be in on "the secret" and duping you all about the curvature of the earth.
Apply Occam's razor. The more likely explanation is that people who believe in flat earth do not understand the reasoning behind the scientific conclusions and so reject them out of hand. Or perhaps their personal identity is wrapped up in a particular belief system and it is too painful to confront any challenges. We are all subject to that behavior on some topics. But if they had concrete evidence other than belief they would be able to share with others who could then independently verify their conclusions. If they were applying the scientific method.
The mistake many laypeople make is assuming that scientists come to their conclusions by consensus in the way common language uses that word. That is not true, they come to their conclusions by tests. When the media says "97% of climatologists believe in human driven climate change" that doesn't mean that 97% just one day said "hey that sounds good, Dr. Joe Blow did a cool study, I think I'll agree with it because it fits my liberal agenda and it'll get me those juicy gov't grants", what it means is that 97% of the people who do the research have performed scientific experiments where they then reach the conclusion that their particular experiment supports it. In other words, scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. It is how they make their legacy and further human knowledge.
Humans are very good at pattern matching, we see connections where sometimes there aren't. It is a good trait. But to be knowledge we can trust those connections must be verified by many others, not just the observation of the connection but the tested reasons explaining those observations. If you wish to prove the earth is flat you will have to design an experiment to test your hypothesis that other people can repeat without your involvement. If they come to the same conclusions as you then you might be on to something. Or do it the other direction, look at the historical experiments that have led us to determination that the earth is a spheroid and repeat them yourself. If you come to different conclusions then publish.
Apply Occam's razor. The more likely explanation is that people who believe in flat earth do not understand the reasoning behind the scientific conclusions and so reject them out of hand. Or perhaps their personal identity is wrapped up in a particular belief system and it is too painful to confront any challenges. We are all subject to that behavior on some topics. But if they had concrete evidence other than belief they would be able to share with others who could then independently verify their conclusions. If they were applying the scientific method.
The mistake many laypeople make is assuming that scientists come to their conclusions by consensus in the way common language uses that word. That is not true, they come to their conclusions by tests. When the media says "97% of climatologists believe in human driven climate change" that doesn't mean that 97% just one day said "hey that sounds good, Dr. Joe Blow did a cool study, I think I'll agree with it because it fits my liberal agenda and it'll get me those juicy gov't grants", what it means is that 97% of the people who do the research have performed scientific experiments where they then reach the conclusion that their particular experiment supports it. In other words, scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. It is how they make their legacy and further human knowledge.
Humans are very good at pattern matching, we see connections where sometimes there aren't. It is a good trait. But to be knowledge we can trust those connections must be verified by many others, not just the observation of the connection but the tested reasons explaining those observations. If you wish to prove the earth is flat you will have to design an experiment to test your hypothesis that other people can repeat without your involvement. If they come to the same conclusions as you then you might be on to something. Or do it the other direction, look at the historical experiments that have led us to determination that the earth is a spheroid and repeat them yourself. If you come to different conclusions then publish.
Sometimes it isn't the science at fault the its the way the modeling is done and interpreted that ends up getting incorrectly analysed.
If you watch this guys testimony to congress on climate change you will see the politics involved try to hold sway over common sense.
Skip first 10 mins its a long un.! ... (im just thinking of your attention span)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cssne9Q5KM
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
Science is the result of using the scientific method to arrive at the truth. It starts with a testable hypothesis, then that hypothesis gets tested until it fails. The tests are not with words and philosophy, they are with experiments that have quantitative outcomes. The fallibility of humans in this situation is the equivalent of a single trader trying to insert a false trade into the bitcoin block. The community of scientists, and more importantly, the documented results from multiple independent tests, do not let the erroneous claims last very long. On that basis surely you must see how colossally impossible it would be for example the thousands of NASA employees to be in on "the secret" and duping you all about the curvature of the earth.
Apply Occam's razor. The more likely explanation is that people who believe in flat earth do not understand the reasoning behind the scientific conclusions and so reject them out of hand. Or perhaps their personal identity is wrapped up in a particular belief system and it is too painful to confront any challenges. We are all subject to that behavior on some topics. But if they had concrete evidence other than belief they would be able to share with others who could then independently verify their conclusions. If they were applying the scientific method.
The mistake many laypeople make is assuming that scientists come to their conclusions by consensus in the way common language uses that word. That is not true, they come to their conclusions by tests. When the media says "97% of climatologists believe in human driven climate change" that doesn't mean that 97% just one day said "hey that sounds good, Dr. Joe Blow did a cool study, I think I'll agree with it because it fits my liberal agenda and it'll get me those juicy gov't grants", what it means is that 97% of the people who do the research have performed scientific experiments where they then reach the conclusion that their particular experiment supports it. In other words, scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. It is how they make their legacy and further human knowledge.
Humans are very good at pattern matching, we see connections where sometimes there aren't. It is a good trait. But to be knowledge we can trust those connections must be verified by many others, not just the observation of the connection but the tested reasons explaining those observations. If you wish to prove the earth is flat you will have to design an experiment to test your hypothesis that other people can repeat without your involvement. If they come to the same conclusions as you then you might be on to something. Or do it the other direction, look at the historical experiments that have led us to determination that the earth is a spheroid and repeat them yourself. If you come to different conclusions then publish.
Apply Occam's razor. The more likely explanation is that people who believe in flat earth do not understand the reasoning behind the scientific conclusions and so reject them out of hand. Or perhaps their personal identity is wrapped up in a particular belief system and it is too painful to confront any challenges. We are all subject to that behavior on some topics. But if they had concrete evidence other than belief they would be able to share with others who could then independently verify their conclusions. If they were applying the scientific method.
The mistake many laypeople make is assuming that scientists come to their conclusions by consensus in the way common language uses that word. That is not true, they come to their conclusions by tests. When the media says "97% of climatologists believe in human driven climate change" that doesn't mean that 97% just one day said "hey that sounds good, Dr. Joe Blow did a cool study, I think I'll agree with it because it fits my liberal agenda and it'll get me those juicy gov't grants", what it means is that 97% of the people who do the research have performed scientific experiments where they then reach the conclusion that their particular experiment supports it. In other words, scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. It is how they make their legacy and further human knowledge.
Humans are very good at pattern matching, we see connections where sometimes there aren't. It is a good trait. But to be knowledge we can trust those connections must be verified by many others, not just the observation of the connection but the tested reasons explaining those observations. If you wish to prove the earth is flat you will have to design an experiment to test your hypothesis that other people can repeat without your involvement. If they come to the same conclusions as you then you might be on to something. Or do it the other direction, look at the historical experiments that have led us to determination that the earth is a spheroid and repeat them yourself. If you come to different conclusions then publish.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
You know, flat Earthers could say the same about you. There is no reason for dividing ourselves into little boxes. "I'm smart and rational, and science is omniscient." vs. "I'm smart and rational, and science is not omniscient."
Come on, guys. We're all talking about the same thing. We are talking about whether to trust your authorities versus whether you can trust your senses.
Some agree that science cannot be trusted, because humans are fallible and are possibly deceitful by nature, while others agree that science can be trusted, because humans are (I guess) infallible and can be trusted to tell the truth, even when they're in power and it's easy to tell lies.
What if those in power of our worldly consciousness - the church, military, media, etc. - have simply decided that it's best that people don't know the real nature of life?
Did you know that the word "Google" in Gematria = 42 numerically.
42. Can you believe that? They're 'aving a laugh. Let's laugh along, and let's get to the bottom of this.
2017 BEST BITCOIN THREAD EVER.
This topic is very interesting.
I always like to read conspiracy theories they always make me wonder
I always like to read conspiracy theories they always make me wonder
Wonder about how gullible some people are? 99.9% of them are really retarded with little to zero explanation of why they think that is the case. Take the flat earth as an example. They are saying NASA and the government are lying to us but they never said why, how do they know, the evidence for their claims. All those missing parts are extremely important.
I won't say do I agree or disagree because whatever i do, one side will call me idiot
Yes I can because this is not an opinion or a different point of view, we are not talking about politics. This is a known fact, known for thousands of years actually that the earth is spherical and not flat so yes anyone who says that the earth is flat is retarded.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
You know, flat Earthers could say the same about you. There is no reason for dividing ourselves into little boxes. "I'm smart and rational, and science is omniscient." vs. "I'm smart and rational, and science is not omniscient."
Come on, guys. We're all talking about the same thing. We are talking about whether to trust your authorities versus whether you can trust your senses.
Some agree that science cannot be trusted, because humans are fallible and are possibly deceitful by nature, while others agree that science can be trusted, because humans are (I guess) infallible and can be trusted to tell the truth, even when they're in power and it's easy to tell lies.
What if those in power of our worldly consciousness - the church, military, media, etc. - have simply decided that it's best that people don't know the real nature of life?
Did you know that the word "Google" in Gematria = 42 numerically.
42. Can you believe that? I say, they're 'aving a laugh. Let's laugh along, and let's get to the bottom of this.
2017 BEST BITCOIN THREAD EVER.
Oh, don't give up so easily. I understand you have anger at the deception, but what good does it do to isolate yourself from those you may reach yet?
Unignore those assheads. Let them speak.
What if... In fact... it's a square cube?
Or did the church already tell us that?
Cardboard blueprint for making a cube: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/c0/2a/02c02a1b942b65b59e61d4296a637e0f.jpg
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/thumb/7/76/Bahdumtish2.png/300px-Bahdumtish2.png
Or did the church already tell us that?
Cardboard blueprint for making a cube: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/02/c0/2a/02c02a1b942b65b59e61d4296a637e0f.jpg
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/thumb/7/76/Bahdumtish2.png/300px-Bahdumtish2.png
This topic is very interesting.
I always like to read conspiracy theories they always make me wonder
I always like to read conspiracy theories they always make me wonder
Wonder about how gullible some people are? 99.9% of them are really retarded with little to zero explanation of why they think that is the case. Take the flat earth as an example. They are saying NASA and the government are lying to us but they never said why, how do they know, the evidence for their claims. All those missing parts are extremely important.
When you say 99.9% of people are retarded and do not question reality, you are almost right. But saying "99.9%" merely shows how biased you are. Clearly, you think 100% of people are retarded. Give or take some downtime from dumbness, when people become really smart.
I mean, I wonder who the 0.01% of people are? Are you maybe talking about how smart only you are? Please, then, enlighten us with your brilliant intelligence. Tell us simple-minded 99.9 percenters how you know that the world is shaped like a globe / sphere / giant peach.
If it helps your explanation, pretend that I am one of the 0.01% of humans who are not gullible. I will not believe a word of what you say, unless it is the absolute truth.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
Right! You can't make anybody believe anything that he doesn't want to. Only in great pain or great joy will someone be forced to drop his irrational opinions, and start to look for reality.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
They will claim that you drugged them and they are really in a holding cell in a bunker under Hollywood.
I think the only way to convince some people that the earth is round is to send them up on a space flight. Land then on the moon so they can see it with their own eyes.
Lorem Ipsum:
Nunc tellus ipsum, tincidunt eget suscipit et, aliquam non tellus.
The only foil in this thread is on your head.
Lorem Ipsum:
Nunc tellus ipsum, tincidunt eget suscipit et, aliquam non tellus.
as long as the water surface is flat, then the earth is flat.
if you think the sea has curve, then the water surface is not flat.
no offense I am 50:50 now.
not sure on the #flatteam or #globeteam
if you think the sea has curve, then the water surface is not flat.
no offense I am 50:50 now.
not sure on the #flatteam or #globeteam
If you are very careful, and if you do it slowly enough, you can actually fill a glass with water above its rim... a little. The water curves down to meet the rim.
You're talking about Meniscus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid)
"The meniscus (plural: menisci, from the Greek for "crescent") is the curve in the upper surface of a liquid close to the surface of the container or another object, caused by surface tension. It can be either concave or convex, depending on the liquid and the surface."
So the Earth could also be convex or concave, depending on whether the glass is full or not full? The oceans aren't overflowing onto the land, are they? Hmm.
Edit: What if the glass is both full and not full? Would totally explain waves. A slight yet constant ebb and flow on the shore between full and not full.
If the glass is both full and not full, Earth is convexically-concave, or concavely-convex. In other words, flat.
Therefore, ocean waves prove flat Earth.
Yes, I'm patenting this proof.
The point of my post was that water is not flat. Since water is not flat, water doesn't have anything to do with flat earth in the ways these FE people say. The simple evidence is the waves in the sea.
Jump to: