Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  7
Likes Likes:  179
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 33 of 46 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 690

Thread: Is the earth flat?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #481
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Alpha you do not even understand what you are saying, but I will indulge you. Your first paragraph -

    "By affirmative claim, I am referring to the official narrative. It is taught to us and we are told we live on a spinning, pressurized system in a vacuum. So that is the claim that I am questioning. The burden of proof lies with those making that claim."

    The burden of proof does not lie with a claim widely believed and backed with documentation, evidence, experiments etc for more than a thousand years. It is not even a claim anymore, it is a long established and verified fact. You are asking that reality be turned on its head in order to indulge your teenage whimsy.

    You can feel the effects of living in a pressurised system simply by diving deep underwater, climbing a mountain or flying in a plane. Your ears popping will let you know.

    That such pressure can exist on a huge planet in the near vacuum of space is not remarkable. It only becomes troublesome when you impose your own willful stupidity. You are having to reject Gravity without providing a replacement because of your flat earth trance.

    You eschew nuance and complexity in order to make up for your own lack of a theories own gaping holes. Helium is lighter than air and so inside a balloon with a slimmer bottom than top it will due to this pressure float upwards. It doesn't disprove the globe model it proves it. Just like birds using uplift to fly proves it.

    The earth spinning again doesn't present conceptual problems until you present scenarios which do not match with lived experience. You are imposing a model that does not fit. We have all traveled at speed on trains and plains and cars and can move about inside the vehicle travelling at speed without a problem.
    Beanz you've already been spanked, you are easy. You have already admitted that you are unable to practically demonstrate your belief that standing bodies of water can naturally conform to the exterior of a shape. Test the physics of water for yourself, I guarantee a body of water will always provide the same results.

    You are just a zealot. I'll be waiting for you to bring something practical to the table, but we both know you can't.

    I'm not sure why you are bothering to continue, as I've said plenty of times, I'm not trying to convince anyone, you wanted to start the thread, I'm just asking questions of the claims taught to me, on my own journey. I am happy to leave you to your belief. But I find it hilarious that you are trying to get me back into your cult belief.
    They live, We sleep

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,221
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    24
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    The burden of proof is on you Alpha. You are making the claim the Earth is not a sphere. The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. We are all still waiting for your proof that the Earth is not a sphere and that gravity does not exist.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    21,348
    Mentioned
    806 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1029
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Alpha. It has been 10 months now since this thread was started, and you have yet to produce anything close to a cogent argument. Lie after lie and inventing the position of your opponents does not make a debate, it becomes little more than a farce. A lot of the problem lies in you laughable grasp, or should I say lack of grasp, when it comes to the fundamentals of philosophy. This is how you have framed everything so you don't get a free pass for using language and concepts you simply do not understand.

    When it comes to an Invalid enthymeme, a lack of parallelism, the negative form of a universal affirmative, affirmative fallacies,a fallacy of equivocation etc, flatboxingflan would not only rip you a new metaphorical arsehole, he would install a shiny new allegorical sphincter as a bonus. I can't keep up with him and though i have read quite extensively the works of people like Nietzsche, Scruton , Hume, Kant etc on aesthetics and Plato and Aristotle as a grounding and some Jung and Kierkegaard etc on Existentialism, I am not so versed in philosophy when used as a basis to dismantle debating styles and tactics.

    Your very basis of belief. 'Objective reality' you call it, is hugely flawed. You don't understand what Objective Reality is . You don't even know how to apply terms like 'Strawman Argument' and 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. In fact and here is the kicker, you almost exclusively use these strategies yourself rather than addressing the subject in hand. Look at the post above where you have called me a zealot, a member of a cult. where again you have repeated that lie that I am supposedly repeatedly making the argument that 'standing bodies of water can naturally conform to the exterior of a shape'. Where have I said that? That is YOUR mantra. Fucking hell we have heard you repeat it again and again for months now.

    It is YOUR strawman. You have built the scarecrow and wheeled him out in post after post pretending that is the argument everyone is presenting in order to make yourself feel smug when you think you are demolishing it.

    It is the core of the argument that you are avoiding like the plague. The interior core of the earth that is keeping everything in place, including the seas, has nothing to do with an argument about the exterior of a shape.
    Hidden Content

    "You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself..."

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    I am questioning the claims that were taught to all of us, it is the affirmative claim that we live on a globe. That is where the burden of proof lays.

    So it's been 10 months and not one practical example of standing bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape.

    The physics of water are testable. The surface of a body of water will always be level.

    Anyone want to provide a practical demonstration of the substance doing what they believe it can is welcome. Otherwise you are just pretending.

    pseudoscience
    /ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/
    noun
    a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
    They live, We sleep

  5. #485
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,538
    Mentioned
    443 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1644
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Hey Alpha. I'm purposely staying away from the flat Earth debate this time around, as you're cool people and I don't want us to get into a dust up like we did last time.

    I'll just limit myself to saying that you have your beliefs, which I respect..... and I have mine, which I hope you respect.

    Rather than try to convince you of anything, I'll just put forth some of my own beliefs, just so you don't think I'm just following some sort of "globe Earth cult."

    First of all, a flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me, if we are all to believe that Earth exists in some "space." Unless of course Earth was stationary, which again is hard for me to believe because..... well..... where is it and how is it supported?
    Instead, if Earth is in fact moving through space, the global model just makes more sense to me. Globes are geometrically suited for movement through space, offering little of the inertial resistance that would come with a flat Earth configuration.
    Granted, you haven't said Earth is moving at all, which of course presents only two possibilities. Either Earth is moving through space, or Earth is stationary. If it's stationary, it must be supported somehow and it's a logical question to ask.

    The talk about gravity. Whatever we choose to call it, there is a force that causes objects to fall to Earth unless a greater force supports it or makes it rise. If we can agree on that, again it just makes more sense to me to think of the global model.
    A force with vectors toward the center of a global Earth is more plausible to me than parallel force vectors all across a flat Earth.
    Where would this force come from? How would it be generated?

    The force of gravity also offers an explanation to the orbits of global bodies. For instance, it explains the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and so on and so forth.
    In the flat Earth model that attempts to explain night and day, there is a Sun that gyrates over the flat Earth, providing sunlight in some parts and not in others, thus night and day.
    I just can't get my head around that. What forces cause the Sun to gyrate in circles above the Earth? What keeps it in that circular path? Again, I need to have things explained by forces.

    We never got over our disagreements on pressure and again we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Pressure exists in a gradient, and that is true both as you go up in the atmosphere, and as you descend below the water surface. It is measurable, repeatable, and calculable.
    You believe you must have a wall or container to have pressure. It is correct when you want to achieve a pressure higher than the surrounding atmospheric pressure, but it is not needed for the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and below the water surface.

    I understand your insistence on discussing the physics of water and how it reaches its level.
    However, all I can tell you there is that it is difficult to perform observations/experiments at a comparatively minute scale, and try to apply it to massive scales.
    No one can replicate the curvature of water in an experiment, simply because certain physics change with vast differences in scale.

    Even the line of sight argument. I hear you when you talk about the horizon "coming up to meet your eye level".... but the simple fact of the matter is that structures disappear from the bottom up as they get further and further away.
    This can be easily demonstrated at a smaller scale and it's purely a case of simple geometry. It's also calculable, and there are plenty of tables which provide the amount of drop (from a straight line) around a curvature of a given diameter.
    Since line of sight is a straight line, hence the behavior of ships and other structures over the horizon.

    There was more, but those are what come to mind. Not to mention the fact that if the Earth was truly flat, we would have to discuss dimensions. No way of getting around that (pardon the pun).
    We can't just dismiss that there must be an end to the plane. We can't just say... oh I don't know where Earth ends... but it's still flat.


    Again Alpha... you're a good guy and I enjoy your banter on the forum, especially about boxing. You really know your stuff.
    I think what put me off last time was my perception that us "globe people" were merely and mindlessly following some sort of indoctrination, without putting our own thoughts into it.
    So I just wanted to say that some of us really do put our best logic into these things.

    Cheers bro.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Hey Alpha. I'm purposely staying away from the flat Earth debate this time around, as you're cool people and I don't want us to get into a dust up like we did last time.

    I'll just limit myself to saying that you have your beliefs, which I respect..... and I have mine, which I hope you respect.

    Rather than try to convince you of anything, I'll just put forth some of my own beliefs, just so you don't think I'm just following some sort of "globe Earth cult."

    First of all, a flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me, if we are all to believe that Earth exists in some "space." Unless of course Earth was stationary, which again is hard for me to believe because..... well..... where is it and how is it supported?
    Instead, if Earth is in fact moving through space, the global model just makes more sense to me. Globes are geometrically suited for movement through space, offering little of the inertial resistance that would come with a flat Earth configuration.
    Granted, you haven't said Earth is moving at all, which of course presents only two possibilities. Either Earth is moving through space, or Earth is stationary. If it's stationary, it must be supported somehow and it's a logical question to ask.

    The talk about gravity. Whatever we choose to call it, there is a force that causes objects to fall to Earth unless a greater force supports it or makes it rise. If we can agree on that, again it just makes more sense to me to think of the global model.
    A force with vectors toward the center of a global Earth is more plausible to me than parallel force vectors all across a flat Earth.
    Where would this force come from? How would it be generated?

    The force of gravity also offers an explanation to the orbits of global bodies. For instance, it explains the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and so on and so forth.
    In the flat Earth model that attempts to explain night and day, there is a Sun that gyrates over the flat Earth, providing sunlight in some parts and not in others, thus night and day.
    I just can't get my head around that. What forces cause the Sun to gyrate in circles above the Earth? What keeps it in that circular path? Again, I need to have things explained by forces.

    We never got over our disagreements on pressure and again we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Pressure exists in a gradient, and that is true both as you go up in the atmosphere, and as you descend below the water surface. It is measurable, repeatable, and calculable.
    You believe you must have a wall or container to have pressure. It is correct when you want to achieve a pressure higher than the surrounding atmospheric pressure, but it is not needed for the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and below the water surface.

    I understand your insistence on discussing the physics of water and how it reaches its level.
    However, all I can tell you there is that it is difficult to perform observations/experiments at a comparatively minute scale, and try to apply it to massive scales.
    No one can replicate the curvature of water in an experiment, simply because certain physics change with vast differences in scale.

    Even the line of sight argument. I hear you when you talk about the horizon "coming up to meet your eye level".... but the simple fact of the matter is that structures disappear from the bottom up as they get further and further away.
    This can be easily demonstrated at a smaller scale and it's purely a case of simple geometry. It's also calculable, and there are plenty of tables which provide the amount of drop (from a straight line) around a curvature of a given diameter.
    Since line of sight is a straight line, hence the behavior of ships and other structures over the horizon.

    There was more, but those are what come to mind. Not to mention the fact that if the Earth was truly flat, we would have to discuss dimensions. No way of getting around that (pardon the pun).
    We can't just dismiss that there must be an end to the plane. We can't just say... oh I don't know where Earth ends... but it's still flat.


    Again Alpha... you're a good guy and I enjoy your banter on the forum, especially about boxing. You really know your stuff.
    I think what put me off last time was my perception that us "globe people" were merely and mindlessly following some sort of indoctrination, without putting our own thoughts into it.
    So I just wanted to say that some of us really do put our best logic into these things.

    Cheers bro.
    All good Tito, like I said, I have never tried to convince anyone, I'm just planting seeds, bring you to the door, if you choose to walk through that's up to you.

    Gravity has so many holes, and most tend to revert back to Newtons. Check out what Newton actually said about gravity.

    The globe works perfectly as a tool and as a concept, unfortunately it doesn't match our reality.

    You know how I feel about maps and models, I prefer to concentrate on science (natural and applied) and what can be practically demonstrated to be true in this reality, using the tangible substances.

    As for pressure, you used the atmoshpere as an example, how we have a pressurized atmoshpere is what I am questioning. We know how pressure is created. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the walls of the container, so I require a practical demonstration of pressure being created without a container. The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum. Again, another practical demonstration of this is required.

    Yes things disappear from the bottom, but it is due to perspective. You can test this, try to go to a football field, or someplace as level as you can get. Place your camera as low to the ground as possible, then get someone to walk away from the camera. You will see they will disappear from the bottom up as they get further away. Doesn't mean the field is curved.

    We are not free to fully explore this place, so until we are we have no idea what the true deminsions of this place are. Can I ask if you think space has an edge?

    You are a good dude as well Tito, remember I also believed I lived on a globe up until 2016. I wasn't lying or following some sort of indoctrination. I was just following what I had been taught. When I applied my attention to it, I found it was pseudoscience.
    They live, We sleep

  7. #487
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,538
    Mentioned
    443 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1644
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Hey Alpha. I'm purposely staying away from the flat Earth debate this time around, as you're cool people and I don't want us to get into a dust up like we did last time.

    I'll just limit myself to saying that you have your beliefs, which I respect..... and I have mine, which I hope you respect.

    Rather than try to convince you of anything, I'll just put forth some of my own beliefs, just so you don't think I'm just following some sort of "globe Earth cult."

    First of all, a flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me, if we are all to believe that Earth exists in some "space." Unless of course Earth was stationary, which again is hard for me to believe because..... well..... where is it and how is it supported?
    Instead, if Earth is in fact moving through space, the global model just makes more sense to me. Globes are geometrically suited for movement through space, offering little of the inertial resistance that would come with a flat Earth configuration.
    Granted, you haven't said Earth is moving at all, which of course presents only two possibilities. Either Earth is moving through space, or Earth is stationary. If it's stationary, it must be supported somehow and it's a logical question to ask.

    The talk about gravity. Whatever we choose to call it, there is a force that causes objects to fall to Earth unless a greater force supports it or makes it rise. If we can agree on that, again it just makes more sense to me to think of the global model.
    A force with vectors toward the center of a global Earth is more plausible to me than parallel force vectors all across a flat Earth.
    Where would this force come from? How would it be generated?

    The force of gravity also offers an explanation to the orbits of global bodies. For instance, it explains the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and so on and so forth.
    In the flat Earth model that attempts to explain night and day, there is a Sun that gyrates over the flat Earth, providing sunlight in some parts and not in others, thus night and day.
    I just can't get my head around that. What forces cause the Sun to gyrate in circles above the Earth? What keeps it in that circular path? Again, I need to have things explained by forces.

    We never got over our disagreements on pressure and again we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Pressure exists in a gradient, and that is true both as you go up in the atmosphere, and as you descend below the water surface. It is measurable, repeatable, and calculable.
    You believe you must have a wall or container to have pressure. It is correct when you want to achieve a pressure higher than the surrounding atmospheric pressure, but it is not needed for the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and below the water surface.

    I understand your insistence on discussing the physics of water and how it reaches its level.
    However, all I can tell you there is that it is difficult to perform observations/experiments at a comparatively minute scale, and try to apply it to massive scales.
    No one can replicate the curvature of water in an experiment, simply because certain physics change with vast differences in scale.

    Even the line of sight argument. I hear you when you talk about the horizon "coming up to meet your eye level".... but the simple fact of the matter is that structures disappear from the bottom up as they get further and further away.
    This can be easily demonstrated at a smaller scale and it's purely a case of simple geometry. It's also calculable, and there are plenty of tables which provide the amount of drop (from a straight line) around a curvature of a given diameter.
    Since line of sight is a straight line, hence the behavior of ships and other structures over the horizon.

    There was more, but those are what come to mind. Not to mention the fact that if the Earth was truly flat, we would have to discuss dimensions. No way of getting around that (pardon the pun).
    We can't just dismiss that there must be an end to the plane. We can't just say... oh I don't know where Earth ends... but it's still flat.


    Again Alpha... you're a good guy and I enjoy your banter on the forum, especially about boxing. You really know your stuff.
    I think what put me off last time was my perception that us "globe people" were merely and mindlessly following some sort of indoctrination, without putting our own thoughts into it.
    So I just wanted to say that some of us really do put our best logic into these things.

    Cheers bro.
    All good Tito, like I said, I have never tried to convince anyone, I'm just planting seeds, bring you to the door, if you choose to walk through that's up to you.

    Gravity has so many holes, and most tend to revert back to Newtons. Check out what Newton actually said about gravity.

    The globe works perfectly as a tool and as a concept, unfortunately it doesn't match our reality.

    You know how I feel about maps and models, I prefer to concentrate on science (natural and applied) and what can be practically demonstrated to be true in this reality, using the tangible substances.

    As for pressure, you used the atmoshpere as an example, how we have a pressurized atmoshpere is what I am questioning. We know how pressure is created. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the walls of the container, so I require a practical demonstration of pressure being created without a container. The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum. Again, another practical demonstration of this is required.

    Yes things disappear from the bottom, but it is due to perspective. You can test this, try to go to a football field, or someplace as level as you can get. Place your camera as low to the ground as possible, then get someone to walk away from the camera. You will see they will disappear from the bottom up as they get further away. Doesn't mean the field is curved.

    We are not free to fully explore this place, so until we are we have no idea what the true deminsions of this place are. Can I ask if you think space has an edge?

    You are a good dude as well Tito, remember I also believed I lived on a globe up until 2016. I wasn't lying or following some sort of indoctrination. I was just following what I had been taught. When I applied my attention to it, I found it was pseudoscience.

    Yeah ok bro. Like I said... we probably won't convince each other to change our views. And that's all good. But just a correction if I may.

    "The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum." IMO, that is not an accurate statement of the claim. It sounds like we're pressurized and.... BOOM.... there's a vacuum.

    What I said is that it's a gradient. It decreases slowly as you ascend, until you have zero absolute pressure. But again.... I have no problem with that concept. You do. That's fine. It's a choice.

    About whether space has an edge. I'm afraid that is totally beyond my pay grade. THAT... is one of the big mysteries of life, and probably why some of us try not to explain everything, realizing there are some things beyond the scope of our comprehension.

    My only point in my long post above was to demonstrate to you that just because someone chooses to believe in the global model, it doesn't mean they're dumb or do not question. I thought I pointed out some solid logic behind my beliefs.
    If they pointed me in another direction, I would hope I would follow that.

    But again, it's just one of those topics where two people can go back and forth all day and never convince each other.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    20,538
    Mentioned
    443 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1644
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    I think the bigger picture here however.... is that we demonstrate how two people can diametrically be opposed in their points of view..... argue back and forth as convincingly as possible..... never reach an agreement..... and yet remain civil and even friendly and respectful toward one another. Even when the initial discussions have turned sour and offensive, mature people can usually revert back to the mutual respect mode and backtrack from any offensive hostility.

    THAT...... my friend, is something you'd think would be standard equipment in every human being. But as clearly evidenced by some of the goings-on here..... that is most certainly NOT the case.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
    Hey Alpha. I'm purposely staying away from the flat Earth debate this time around, as you're cool people and I don't want us to get into a dust up like we did last time.

    I'll just limit myself to saying that you have your beliefs, which I respect..... and I have mine, which I hope you respect.

    Rather than try to convince you of anything, I'll just put forth some of my own beliefs, just so you don't think I'm just following some sort of "globe Earth cult."

    First of all, a flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me, if we are all to believe that Earth exists in some "space." Unless of course Earth was stationary, which again is hard for me to believe because..... well..... where is it and how is it supported?
    Instead, if Earth is in fact moving through space, the global model just makes more sense to me. Globes are geometrically suited for movement through space, offering little of the inertial resistance that would come with a flat Earth configuration.
    Granted, you haven't said Earth is moving at all, which of course presents only two possibilities. Either Earth is moving through space, or Earth is stationary. If it's stationary, it must be supported somehow and it's a logical question to ask.

    The talk about gravity. Whatever we choose to call it, there is a force that causes objects to fall to Earth unless a greater force supports it or makes it rise. If we can agree on that, again it just makes more sense to me to think of the global model.
    A force with vectors toward the center of a global Earth is more plausible to me than parallel force vectors all across a flat Earth.
    Where would this force come from? How would it be generated?

    The force of gravity also offers an explanation to the orbits of global bodies. For instance, it explains the orbit of the moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and so on and so forth.
    In the flat Earth model that attempts to explain night and day, there is a Sun that gyrates over the flat Earth, providing sunlight in some parts and not in others, thus night and day.
    I just can't get my head around that. What forces cause the Sun to gyrate in circles above the Earth? What keeps it in that circular path? Again, I need to have things explained by forces.

    We never got over our disagreements on pressure and again we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
    Pressure exists in a gradient, and that is true both as you go up in the atmosphere, and as you descend below the water surface. It is measurable, repeatable, and calculable.
    You believe you must have a wall or container to have pressure. It is correct when you want to achieve a pressure higher than the surrounding atmospheric pressure, but it is not needed for the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and below the water surface.

    I understand your insistence on discussing the physics of water and how it reaches its level.
    However, all I can tell you there is that it is difficult to perform observations/experiments at a comparatively minute scale, and try to apply it to massive scales.
    No one can replicate the curvature of water in an experiment, simply because certain physics change with vast differences in scale.

    Even the line of sight argument. I hear you when you talk about the horizon "coming up to meet your eye level".... but the simple fact of the matter is that structures disappear from the bottom up as they get further and further away.
    This can be easily demonstrated at a smaller scale and it's purely a case of simple geometry. It's also calculable, and there are plenty of tables which provide the amount of drop (from a straight line) around a curvature of a given diameter.
    Since line of sight is a straight line, hence the behavior of ships and other structures over the horizon.

    There was more, but those are what come to mind. Not to mention the fact that if the Earth was truly flat, we would have to discuss dimensions. No way of getting around that (pardon the pun).
    We can't just dismiss that there must be an end to the plane. We can't just say... oh I don't know where Earth ends... but it's still flat.


    Again Alpha... you're a good guy and I enjoy your banter on the forum, especially about boxing. You really know your stuff.
    I think what put me off last time was my perception that us "globe people" were merely and mindlessly following some sort of indoctrination, without putting our own thoughts into it.
    So I just wanted to say that some of us really do put our best logic into these things.

    Cheers bro.
    All good Tito, like I said, I have never tried to convince anyone, I'm just planting seeds, bring you to the door, if you choose to walk through that's up to you.

    Gravity has so many holes, and most tend to revert back to Newtons. Check out what Newton actually said about gravity.

    The globe works perfectly as a tool and as a concept, unfortunately it doesn't match our reality.

    You know how I feel about maps and models, I prefer to concentrate on science (natural and applied) and what can be practically demonstrated to be true in this reality, using the tangible substances.

    As for pressure, you used the atmoshpere as an example, how we have a pressurized atmoshpere is what I am questioning. We know how pressure is created. The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the walls of the container, so I require a practical demonstration of pressure being created without a container. The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum. Again, another practical demonstration of this is required.

    Yes things disappear from the bottom, but it is due to perspective. You can test this, try to go to a football field, or someplace as level as you can get. Place your camera as low to the ground as possible, then get someone to walk away from the camera. You will see they will disappear from the bottom up as they get further away. Doesn't mean the field is curved.

    We are not free to fully explore this place, so until we are we have no idea what the true deminsions of this place are. Can I ask if you think space has an edge?

    You are a good dude as well Tito, remember I also believed I lived on a globe up until 2016. I wasn't lying or following some sort of indoctrination. I was just following what I had been taught. When I applied my attention to it, I found it was pseudoscience.

    Yeah ok bro. Like I said... we probably won't convince each other to change our views. And that's all good. But just a correction if I may.

    "The claim is we live in a pressurized, next to a vacuum." IMO, that is not an accurate statement of the claim. It sounds like we're pressurized and.... BOOM.... there's a vacuum.

    What I said is that it's a gradient. It decreases slowly as you ascend, until you have zero absolute pressure. But again.... I have no problem with that concept. You do. That's fine. It's a choice.

    About whether space has an edge. I'm afraid that is totally beyond my pay grade. THAT... is one of the big mysteries of life, and probably why some of us try not to explain everything, realizing there are some things beyond the scope of our comprehension.

    My only point in my long post above was to demonstrate to you that just because someone chooses to believe in the global model, it doesn't mean they're dumb or do not question. I thought I pointed out some solid logic behind my beliefs.
    If they pointed me in another direction, I would hope I would follow that.

    But again, it's just one of those topics where two people can go back and forth all day and never convince each other.
    Sorry, I re-read what I typed and realized I forgot some bits to it. So the claim is we live in a pressurized system, beside a vaccum with no barrier seperating them. Now I understand that you believe that the gradient reaches zero and then goes to negative. The fact is, you are not able to practically demonstrate that belief. We know what happens in reality when we have pressure in one area, and a vacumm beside, seperated by a barrier. What happens when the barrier is removed? Again this is testable, demonstrable and repeatable.

    So if it's a possiblity that space has no edge, would you say it's a possibilty that earth, if flat, could be an infinite plane? I'm not claiming it is, just staing that as we a not allowed to freely explore this place, we don't really know. I have many musing and speculations about civilizations that have vanished. If I was free to explore I would head north. Did these civilizations figure out there was more to this place? That stuff is fun to think about.

    Like I said, I also believed the extact same thing you do, didnt make me dumb, but it did make me realize how much I didn't now or question. Test this for yourself. Ask a dozen friends, general questions about earth and the heliocentric model. How big earth is, how fast it's spinning, how far away is the moon and sun, how big the moon and sun are etc. I think you will be surprised by the results. I used to pride myself on my knowledge of boxing, and think it was impressive. But I couldn't answer one of those questions before taking a serious look at it. I find that very unusual and think it is all by design.

    You did point out some good logic, and like I said, the globe works perfectly as a concept.
    They live, We sleep

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    21,348
    Mentioned
    806 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1029
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    I am questioning the claims that were taught to all of us, it is the affirmative claim that we live on a globe. That is where the burden of proof lays.

    So it's been 10 months and not one practical example of standing bodies of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape.

    The physics of water are testable. The surface of a body of water will always be level.

    Anyone want to provide a practical demonstration of the substance doing what they believe it can is welcome. Otherwise you are just pretending.

    pseudoscience
    /ˈsjuːdəʊˌsʌɪəns/
    noun
    a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
    You never addressed anything as per usual, just your same old phrase trotted out as deflection.
    Hidden Content

    "You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself..."

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,221
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    24
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

    And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

    Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

    Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

    But it's not.


  12. #492
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

    And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

    Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

    Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

    But it's not.

    Should be easy for you then to provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending.
    They live, We sleep

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    21,348
    Mentioned
    806 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1029
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

    And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

    Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

    Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

    But it's not.

    Should be easy for you then to.

    10 months is quite a long time but I thought you might have realized in that time that everyone was giving you a chance to explain yourself. People, quite unlike you , have been incredibly patient and gracious and, unlike you, have avoided strawman arguments and hilariously they have all avoided the trap you fell into from your very first post.

    Circular reasoning.

    Here you are still using the same logical fallacy. The pragmatic defect in your argument is that in order to prove the earth is flat you have to dismiss gravity and so you begin with what you are trying end with. So you start with the illusion that you can model the earth and that water is level because to YOU it looks level and HOORAY you think you have proved we can not be living on a sphere

    When you ask for people to " provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending" people are perplexed because it is a nonsense phrase. Water is defined by the very observable fact that it's very nature lies in it's innate flexibility. It bends and curves all the time, everyday, everywhere.







    Looks like a physical example - photographed eyewitness account -of a standing body of water- the sea - with the surface naturally bending - a wave . It goes up and curves, but must always return down, because of gravity, the same force that keep it level and clinging to the outside of our sphere, in the absence of wind.



    The sea sometimes looks level, precisely because we live on a sphere. It is being pulled down towards the centre of the earth. You can't see the curve because you are tiddly in comparison to the horizon and Earthly down will always be inward toward the centre. It is why things fall down toward the centre of the earth and why a spirit level is not level to the ground.
    Last edited by Beanz; 10-24-2019 at 12:07 AM.
    Hidden Content

    "You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself..."

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    6,845
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    247
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan View Post
    It has occurred to me today that when a ship sails off toward the horizon, it doesn't just get smaller and smaller until it's not visible anymore. Have you ever noticed the hull seems to sink below the horizon first, then the mast. When ships return from sea, the sequence is reversed: First the mast, then the hull, seem to rise over the horizon. The ship-and-horizon observation is so self-evident but Flat-~Brainers~ Earthers assume WRONGLY that the sequential disappearance is simply an illusion brought on by "perspective". This "debunking" doesn't make much sense, as there's nothing about "perspective" that should make the bottom of an object disappear before the top. If you'd like to prove to yourself that perspective isn't the reason for boats disappearing hull-first and returning mast-first, bring a telescope or binoculars on your trip to the harbor. Even with vision enhancement, the ship will still dip below the curve of the Earth.

    And then there's THIS little inconvenient tid-bit: Aristotle figured out this one in 350 B.C., and as far as I have ever been able to tell, nothing's changed. Different constellations are visible from different latitudes. I can give 2 great examples are the Big Dipper and the Southern Cross. The Big Dipper is always visible at latitudes of 41 degrees North or higher. Below 25 degrees South, you can't see it at all. And in northern Australia, just north of that latitude, the Big Dipper just barely squeaks above the horizon. To make Flat-Earthers sweat their little derrieres off even worse, in the Southern Hemisphere, there's the Southern Cross, a bright four-star arrangement. That constellation isn't visible until you travel as far south as the Florida Keys in the Northern Hemisphere. These different stellar views make sense if you imagine the Earth as a globe, so that looking "up" really means looking toward a different sliver of space from the Southern or Northern hemisphere.

    Oh and if we're still on Aristotle, he wrote (and we still have the text) during lunar eclipses, the Earth's shadow on the face of the sun is curved. I have repeatedly shown this to Alpha. Since this curved shape exists during all lunar eclipses, despite the fact that Earth is rotating, Aristotle correctly intuited from this curved shadow that the Earth is curvy all around — in other words, a sphere. For that matter, solar eclipses also prove the idea that the planets, moons and stars are a bunch of roundish objects orbiting each other. If the Earth is a disk and the stars and planets a bunch of small, nearby objects hovering in a dome above the surface, as many flat-Earthers believe, the total solar eclipse that crossed North America in August 2017 becomes very difficult to explain. Verrrrrrrrrrrrry difficult.

    Aaaaaaaaaand there's this: the curvature of the Earth limits our sight to about 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) … unless you climb up a tall tree, building or mountain and get yourself a perspective from higher up. You can see farther if you go higher. If the Earth was flat, you'd be able to see the same distance no matter your elevation. Think about it: Your eye can detect a bright object, like the Andromeda galaxy, from 2.6 million light-years away. Seeing the lights of, say, Miami from New York City (a distance of a mere 1,094 miles or 1,760 kilometers) on a clear evening should be child's play.

    But it's not.

    Should be easy for you then to.

    10 months is quite a long time but I thought you might have realized in that time that everyone was giving you a chance to explain yourself. People, quite unlike you , have been incredibly patient and gracious and, unlike you, have avoided strawman arguments and hilariously they have all avoided the trap you fell into from your very first post.

    Circular reasoning.

    Here you are still using the same logical fallacy. The pragmatic defect in your argument is that in order to prove the earth is flat you have to dismiss gravity and so you begin with what you are trying end with. So you start with the illusion that you can model the earth and that water is level because to YOU it looks level and HOORAY you think you have proved we can not be living on a sphere

    When you ask for people to " provide a physical example of a standing body of water with the surface naturally bending" people are perplexed because it is a nonsense phrase. Water is defined by the very observable fact that it's very nature lies in it's innate flexibility. It bends and curves all the time, everyday, everywhere.







    Looks like a physical example - photographed eyewitness account -of a standing body of water- the sea - with the surface naturally bending - a wave . It goes up and curves, but must always return down, because of gravity, the same force that keep it level and clinging to the outside of our sphere, in the absence of wind.



    The sea sometimes looks level, precisely because we live on a sphere. It is being pulled down towards the centre of the earth. You can't see the curve because you are tiddly in comparison to the horizon and Earthly down will always be inward toward the centre. It is why things fall down toward the centre of the earth and why a spirit level is not level to the ground.
    Showing your intellectual dishonesty again Beanz. You are talking about waves, which is motion, not a standing body of water. Test the tangible substance. The physics will show you that the surface of a standing body of water will always be perfectly level. Now if you disagree, you need to practically demonstrate what you believe it does, using the tangible substance. Otherwise you are just dealing in pretend and psuedoscience.
    They live, We sleep

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Fenay, Longvic
    Posts
    1,221
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    24
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Is the earth flat?

    Is a soccer ball a sphere? Answer: (since you will not answer that or any other question @Beanz has castrated you with): YES, A SOCCER BALL IS A SPHERE.

    Now imagine that soccer ball is the Earth then human beings would be smaller than the smallest possible pinpoint on that soccer ball and their vision would not be able to see more than 3.1 miles in any direction. Of course to them everything would look flat. But they cannot see the entire soccer ball because they are too small compared to the size of the soccer ball. That is why you believe the Earth is flat. Because you cannot see far enough with your own eyes. Telescopes will prove it but you won't admit it. You did not answer any of the points that I brought up about a ship who's h u l l disappears below the horizon first and then the mask of the ship last. And when the ship is returning towards you the mast will reappear first and then the hull of the ship after that. Go back and try to answer the four points that I burned you so badly with. Then go back and try to answer the points that Beanz has also grilled you mortally with.

    Know what's funny?

    We all know you won't answer any of them!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. flat footed
    By fightingforever in forum Ask the Trainer
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 01:41 PM
  2. Does your house/flat have a name...?
    By smashup in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 06:30 PM
  3. My Flat
    By beds in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 02:19 AM
  4. My flat was burgled last night....
    By Mark TKO in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-14-2006, 01:39 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  





Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Videos | Boxing Forum | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Auctions | Fun and Games | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Saddo Boxing - Boxing