I don't know what shape the earth is, but look at this

[SKAWF]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I[...]
... I honestly still can't quite understand how a floating chopper can land on an earth that is supposed to be spinning at 1000 mph....
[...]

To keep it simple and with that same terminology: that's because the chopper indeed does "float" in an atmosphere that's also "entrained" to follow earth 1000mph spin... hope that makes enough sense?

Yes. It's what's called an 'inertial frame of reference'.

What that means is that everything's traveling at the same speed — the earth, the air, the helicopter, everything.

So landing the helicopter on the ground is as easy as dropping a tennis ball from one hand into the other when you're in a plane traveling at 500 mph.

The air's not moving relative to anything else, so it doesn't matter whether the plane is on the runway, or is an interstellar spacecraft traveling at half the speed of light. INSIDE the plane, it's all the same.

A little more on this, though it's off-topic. Some might find it very interesting.

Supposing your interstellar spacecraft, traveling at half the speed of light, had headlights? Or a window at the front, where you could shine a spotlight?

How fast would the light beam be going, once it was outside the spacecraft?

That's not a simple question. In fact, it seems to be a paradox, because the speed of light is a constant, no matter where it's measured from.

Think about that for a moment. It's a real pretzel of a brain-twister.

Solving that riddle is what led Einstein to the Special Theory of Relativity.

okay,

initially i would say that if one was travelling at the speed of light, with the old high beam on,
then it would be the speed of light, plus the speed of travel.

however, as one is already travelling at the speed of light
ones headlights would also be travelling at light speed

so that when you switch them on, the light would ONLY be travelling at light speed

which suggest's to my recently fried brain, that the speed of light is relative, and possibly subjective.

that said, what if a neutral , stationary observer were to observe an object travelling at light speed, with its headlights on?

BTW i love the way you ended that post with a 'back to topic' emoji!

[felix roseczky]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by felix roseczky, addressing Mike (here)
I can feel a lot of anger and fear from your words.

Felix, you've been here less than a week, and you've made less than half a dozen posts. One could be forgiven for getting the impression that you're acting like you know better than others.

You don't... and you don't know Mike at all, who's greatly loved by the members here and has been here for years.

one love brother.

so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me? if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.


you know bill ryan
i do know that i do not know. i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

may gods love be with you

[Wind]

Once space travel becomes cheap and easy to do for everyone, silly threads like this can be put to rest and people will surely KNOW better instead of just guessing.

[Hervé]

Posted by SKAWF (here)
[...]
... what if a neutral , stationary observer were to observe an object travelling at light speed, with its headlights on?
[...]

Well, would it be even possible for the headlights to even turn on? Since the object carrying the headlights goes as fast as lights emitting from it... wouldn't some sort of "light barrier" be created, as an equivalent to "sound barrier"?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by SKAWF (here)
...which suggest's to my recently fried brain, that the speed of light is relative, and possibly subjective.

Yes, it's constant relative to any observer. That's why Einstein called it the 'Theory of Relativity'.

@ Loxie: Light does vary its speed a little, when passing through various substances sometimes. But it's always the same in a vacuum, no matter who's measuring it or how fast they're traveling in any direction. That's all highly weird, and needed some very clever math, and a bunch of new concepts, to resolve the paradox. That's what made Einstein famous.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me?

Yes, please. (When it comes to judging other members whom you don't know yet.)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.

Yes, you are. It's common sense that my dog is a dog. Not a cat. I can see that, and if you met my dog, so could you.

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

But a child could also see my dog is a dog.

Children ask good questions. But smart children are willing to learn fast.

It's fine for a 3 year old (or even a 6 year old) to think the Earth may be flat, and ask questions about it. But if a 33 year old thinks the Earth is flat, it simply means they've not learned much the past 30 years.

[Apulu]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me?

Yes, please. (When it comes to judging other members whom you don't know yet.)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.

Yes, you are. It's common sense that my dog is a dog. Not a cat. I can see that, and if you met my dog, so could you.

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

But a child could also see my dog is a dog.

Children ask good questions. But smart children are willing to learn fast.

It's fine for a 3 year old (or even a 6 year old) to think the Earth may be flat, and ask questions about it. But if a 33 year old thinks the Earth is flat, it simply means they've not learned much the past 30 years.

Bill, with humble respect, I think this is too strong. I don't really want to be involved in this particular discussion any more, but as far as I have been, I don't think I can let this go. And it pains me to be 'at odds' with you here. I feel there's is a certain amount of unfairness going on surrounding this thread, and I personally don't think felix, and a few others, deserve this treatment.

As far as I can tell, I think what felix has said, that you're referring to here, is similar to what I've said: something along the lines of "no one can know anything for certain, so what's the point in getting upset with anyone, who believes anything?"

I agree, that in a specific debate about earth shape, or countless other things, this argument is REALLY not very helpful. But in a situation where beliefs are being attacked, ridiculed and belittled, I think is. Vitally important, in fact. I think this is where, sometimes, a confusion has been happening.

I think it's unhelpful, in the extreme, to refer to people as children, who don't go with a round earth model. If indeed that's what you were doing. It might seem painfully obvious to you, and others, but to some it's obviously not.

You know, funnily enough, I can't help but see anyone who isn't able to grasp that they can't know ANYTHING for CERTAIN, as a bit child like. Reasoning about what it's possible to know, leads to this: nothing, outside of one's own consciousness, can ever be fully verified, or fully proven, or fully stated as fact. But for some (possibly most) this seems impossible to acknowledge.

If you're as intolerant as you seem to be about flat-earth theories, why not make an Avalon declaration of some kind, that people could be referred to. Then people would know what to expect if they push an agenda of wanting to debate it, and it might save on 7 pages of hoolabagooba Just a thought.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Apulu (here)
what's the point in getting upset with anyone, who believes anything?"

It's a psy-op which has been introduced into the alternative community to make it look foolish and un-credible.

It makes Avalon looks foolish and un-credible as well, and the mods team will absolutely draw certain lines in the sand.

That's why we have membership applications. If anyone applied to join, and told us they were a diehard Flat Earther, we'd decline their application immediately. If we were to approve them, no-one would win.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Apulu (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me?

Yes, please. (When it comes to judging other members whom you don't know yet.)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.

Yes, you are. It's common sense that my dog is a dog. Not a cat. I can see that, and if you met my dog, so could you.

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

But a child could also see my dog is a dog.

Children ask good questions. But smart children are willing to learn fast.

It's fine for a 3 year old (or even a 6 year old) to think the Earth may be flat, and ask questions about it. But if a 33 year old thinks the Earth is flat, it simply means they've not learned much the past 30 years.

Bill, with humble respect, I think this is too strong. I don't really want to be involved in this particular discussion any more, but as far as I have been, I don't think I can let this go. And it pains me to be 'at odds' with you here. I feel there's is a certain amount of unfairness going on surrounding this thread, and I personally don't think felix, and a few others, deserve this treatment.

As far as I can tell, I think what felix has said, that you're referring to here, is similar to what I've said: something along the lines of "no one can know anything for certain, so what's the point in getting upset with anyone, who believes anything?"

I agree, that in a specific debate about earth shape, or countless other things, this argument is REALLY not very helpful. But in a situation where beliefs are being attacked, ridiculed and belittled, I think is. Vitally important, in fact. I think this is where, sometimes, a confusion has been happening.

I think it's unhelpful, in the extreme, to refer to people as children, who don't go with a round earth model. If indeed that's what you were doing. It might seem painfully obvious to you, and others, but to some it's obviously not.

You know, funnily enough, I can't help but see anyone who isn't able to grasp that they can't know ANYTHING for CERTAIN, as a bit child like. Reasoning about what it's possible to know, leads to this: nothing, outside of one's own consciousness, can ever be fully verified, or fully proven, or fully stated as fact. But for some (possibly most) this seems impossible to acknowledge.

If you're as intolerant as you seem to be about flat-earth theories, why not make an Avalon declaration of some kind, that people could be referred to. Then people would know what to expect if they push an agenda of wanting to debate it, and it might save on 7 pages of hoolabagooba Just a thought.

If I may ...

"no one knows anything for certain" - addressed by Herve previously ... there are certainly degrees of certainty. The level of those degrees is dependent on the knowledge, education, experience, reasoning abilities, and ability to do critical thinking and/or deductive reasoning. Not everyone is equal in these areas, that's fine, but failure to recognize how degrees of certainty relate to these aspects is disingenuous. Any can believe what they want, but it's how they can express themselves within their ability to maintain a degree of certainty, and not overreaching it, that makes the difference.

Understanding and knowing what you don't know has equal importance to what you think you know. Understanding what you don't know, gives you insights into where you should be placing your degrees of certainty. It is fine for someone to say "I don't know for certain within my degrees of certainty" -- doesn't mean people should project that onto others.


Bill didn't refer to Felix as a child, he was extending an example within Felix's own reference to seeing the world through a child's eyes.


There's a fine line between intolerance and impatience for people unwilling to look deeper and more broadly. How many flat earther's tried to prove the earth was a sphere, just so they can say they know both sides of the argument before concluding? I'd say zero.

I personally have watched all Mark Sargent's videos, and explored to death flat earth theories, and I can see why some people can be led to believing this, but I can also see fully how the evidence for a flat earth is almost nothing compared to the evidence (within my degrees of certainty, based on my education, experience, understanding of physics, etc.) for a sphere earth. It's like a thousand to one. If flat earther's learned and experienced all they needed to to be able to at least try to prove the earth is a sphere, they will be surprised to see how much supporting and corroborating evidence there is. The problem is most flat earther's can't or don't do this.

All the evidence for the sphere earth supports other evidence in a synergistic way. This cannot be said at all for flat earth evidence - it's random bites here and there, that have come out of a lack of understanding of some fundamental, and provable concepts.

[FreeURmind]

.............

It's neither. But both.

[Apulu]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Apulu (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me?

Yes, please. (When it comes to judging other members whom you don't know yet.)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.

Yes, you are. It's common sense that my dog is a dog. Not a cat. I can see that, and if you met my dog, so could you.

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

But a child could also see my dog is a dog.

Children ask good questions. But smart children are willing to learn fast.

It's fine for a 3 year old (or even a 6 year old) to think the Earth may be flat, and ask questions about it. But if a 33 year old thinks the Earth is flat, it simply means they've not learned much the past 30 years.

Bill, with humble respect, I think this is too strong. I don't really want to be involved in this particular discussion any more, but as far as I have been, I don't think I can let this go. And it pains me to be 'at odds' with you here. I feel there's is a certain amount of unfairness going on surrounding this thread, and I personally don't think felix, and a few others, deserve this treatment.

As far as I can tell, I think what felix has said, that you're referring to here, is similar to what I've said: something along the lines of "no one can know anything for certain, so what's the point in getting upset with anyone, who believes anything?"

I agree, that in a specific debate about earth shape, or countless other things, this argument is REALLY not very helpful. But in a situation where beliefs are being attacked, ridiculed and belittled, I think is. Vitally important, in fact. I think this is where, sometimes, a confusion has been happening.

I think it's unhelpful, in the extreme, to refer to people as children, who don't go with a round earth model. If indeed that's what you were doing. It might seem painfully obvious to you, and others, but to some it's obviously not.

You know, funnily enough, I can't help but see anyone who isn't able to grasp that they can't know ANYTHING for CERTAIN, as a bit child like. Reasoning about what it's possible to know, leads to this: nothing, outside of one's own consciousness, can ever be fully verified, or fully proven, or fully stated as fact. But for some (possibly most) this seems impossible to acknowledge.

If you're as intolerant as you seem to be about flat-earth theories, why not make an Avalon declaration of some kind, that people could be referred to. Then people would know what to expect if they push an agenda of wanting to debate it, and it might save on 7 pages of hoolabagooba Just a thought.

If I may ...

"no one knows anything for certain" - addressed by Herve previously ... there are certainly degrees of certainty. The level of those degrees is dependent on the knowledge, education, experience, reasoning abilities, and ability to do critical thinking and/or deductive reasoning. Not everyone is equal in these areas, that's fine, but failure to recognize how degrees of certainty relate to these aspects is disingenuous. Any can believe what they want, but it's how they can express themselves within their ability to maintain a degree of certainty, and not overreaching it, that makes the difference.

Understanding and knowing what you don't know has equal importance to what you think you know. Understanding what you don't know, gives you insights into where you should be placing your degrees of certainty. It is fine for someone to say "I don't know for certain within my degrees of certainty" -- doesn't mean people should project that onto others.


Bill didn't refer to Felix as a child, he was extending an example within Felix's own reference to seeing the world through a child's eyes.


There's a fine line between intolerance and impatience for people unwilling to look deeper and more broadly. How many flat earther's tried to prove the earth was a sphere, just so they can say they know both sides of the argument before concluding? I'd say zero.

I personally have watched all Mark Sargent's videos, and explored to death flat earth theories, and I can see why some people can be led to believing this, but I can also see fully how the evidence for a flat earth is almost nothing compared to the evidence (within my degrees of certainty, based on my education, experience, understanding of physics, etc.) for a sphere earth. It's like a thousand to one. If flat earther's learned and experienced all they needed to to be able to at least try to prove the earth is a sphere, they will be surprised to see how much supporting and corroborating evidence there is. The problem is most flat earther's can't or don't do this.

All the evidence for the sphere earth supports other evidence in a synergistic way. This cannot be said at all for flat earth evidence - it's random bites here and there, that have come out of a lack of understanding of some fundamental, and provable concepts.

You may - that was brilliantly put. Can't disagree with any of that, and I got some genuine insight to boot. Thanks for that.

My quibble here is with a seeming lack of respect in handling other people's beliefs. I can understand the need to be firm if someone is blatantly disregarding evidence and reasoning, but in a few cases, I wasn't seeing that.

I may have been too quick to accuse Bill of referring to people as children, but I still feel the inference is there. Perhaps it's not.

Anyhoo. Hopefully this thread will go away soon

[Kano]

I feel there's is a certain amount of unfairness going on surrounding this thread, and I personally don't think felix, and a few others, deserve this treatment.

True.

I think it's unhelpful, in the extreme, to refer to people as children, who don't go with a round earth model.

Truer.

If you're as intolerant as you seem to be about flat-earth theories, why not make an Avalon declaration of some kind, that people could be referred to. Then people would know what to expect if they push an agenda of wanting to debate it, and it might save on 7 pages of hoolabagooba Just a thought.

Truest.

[Matthew]

Posted by Apulu (here)
...
Anyhoo. Hopefully this thread will go away soon

The mods have changed their minds, members have changed their minds, we have all reflected on the nature of groups and stuff... on the contrary Apulu! What a great thread. Let me take the opportunity to say these U-turns and introspection(s?) are great. I'm sure U-turns are the way forward on lots of things and should be encouraged... and if you will forgive my play on words (*1) especially if one believes we live on a flat earth

*1 you have to think about it

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Apulu (here)
I may have been too quick to accuse Bill of referring to people as children, but I still feel the inference is there. Perhaps it's not.

Anyhoo. Hopefully this thread will go away soon

No, you weren't... that's pretty much what I was doing, though I crafted my words carefully, and not impolitely, to make a point about the importance of being willing to read, listen, watch, and learn.

To refer to someone as childlike is sometimes an endearing compliment. But to describe someone who's a grown adult, who still hasn't figured things out that most children already have, as still thinking like a child, is no compliment at all.

Re 'going away soon', the history of Flat Earth threads is not all that encouraging. They're easy to search for. MUCH has been written, sometimes with very great patience.

So now, those members who've been here for years go: "OMG, not again. "

It's the apparent unwillingness of those suddenly stating YouTube opinions, especially if they're new or infrequently visiting members, to READ those threads and THINK about what's in them and WATCH the many videos — that seems like it's a problem.

Believe me, we've got MANY MANY MANY better things to talk about than this.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Kano (here)

Posted by Apulu (here)
If you're as intolerant as you seem to be about flat-earth theories, why not make an Avalon declaration of some kind, that people could be referred to. Then people would know what to expect if they push an agenda of wanting to debate it, and it might save on 7 pages of hoolabagooba Just a thought.

Truest.

It's already there.

• https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ome-to-Avalon-

Read this part, maybe several times:

daviddjg23, felix roseczky, and FreeURmind, you read this (or were very pleasantly asked to) when you posted on the Welcome Thread just a few weeks ago to activate your membership.

~~~

A note about some aspects of the forum which are sometimes a little controversial: that of disinformation.

This is a huge topic, and is much discussed elsewhere, besides here. Its very purpose is to trick, deceive and confuse.

Some disinformation (the definition of which is part truth, part fiction) is deliberately injected into the alternative media. See this article for more details of the operation, which was launched at the start of 2013:

• http://web.archive.org/web/201304030.../archives/7666

This is a problem that’s becoming larger. It’s tricky to handle on the forum, because we do NOT want to tell people what to think... but rather, we want to support them in HOW to think.

A few people might join the community believing, for instance, that the 'Flat Earth' is real, and that NASA always lies, and therefore no official statements can ever be believed. But that’s lazy thinking.

To figure out what’s true and what’s not, we have to do work. To reject everything and settle for some sugar-coated fantasy (and there are several of those circulating out there) takes NO work. So we do have to be prepared to do some work, when we study and learn and share.

Everyone can be forgiven for having at some time bought into a false idea, especially if their pilgrimage to the truth has quite recently begun. We’re committed to support all members in that journey.

But if a member demonstrates that they’re fixated and intransigent in a view that’s demonstrably flawed, and insists on promoting that, and seems to have stalled their own process of inquiry and learning, and never changes, then we may ask them to leave, too — because they would be a detriment to the well-being of the community.

It’d be like a heckler in a presentation, rather than someone asking intelligent and informed questions... which is always 100% fine.

This is not about ‘free speech’. That’s lazy thinking, too. It’s more like a university (and this is a very good one) that has certain admissions criteria. Poor students may possibly flunk out here, if I can put it so bluntly.

So — we ask for and expect your very best.

[Mike]

Hi Apulu, you're clearly a kind and thoughtful person. I can appreciate that while reading your posts.

These people perpetrating this flat earth thing, all they need is a small crack to enter into. And from there they ooze their way in to create little doubts and misdirections..even in the minds of some reasonable people.

They count on the kindness and tolerance and "open mindedness" of people around them to act as those cracks.

Imo this is a case, for the sake of the alternative community, where firmness and intolerance are perhaps the kindest and wisest approach to take, ultimately.

[Mike]

Posted by felix roseczky (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by felix roseczky, addressing Mike (here)
I can feel a lot of anger and fear from your words.

Felix, you've been here less than a week, and you've made less than half a dozen posts. One could be forgiven for getting the impression that you're acting like you know better than others.

You don't... and you don't know Mike at all, who's greatly loved by the members here and has been here for years.

one love brother.

so i shall stfu? is that what you try to tell me? if this is common sense in this space i m probably wrong here.


you know bill ryan
i do know that i do not know. i see the existence like a child. eyes wide open.

may gods love be with you

Felix I notice on your profile page you've listed your occupation as "social engineering"

Care to elaborate?

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by felix roseczky (here)
I can feel a lot of anger and fear from your words.

Felix I notice on your profile page you've listed your occupation as "social engineering"

Care to elaborate?

I happen to catch that and wondered myself.

[Wind]

As Bill said, we the members who have been here for years have already seen all of those previous flat threads and the discussions in them always kept going round in circles, pun intended. The meme of a flat earth exists for a reason, it's there to weed out the more gullible people and to make them even more distracted so that they will be focusing on trivial matters. I wouldn't be surprised if alphabet agencies are enforcing that meme, even though these alternative & conspiracy communities are barely any threat to the establishment, just a minor nuisance probably.

There are different levels to awakening, but knowing that there are conspiracies doesn't automatically make you more awake and aware. You still have to use logic and discernment in order not to be a gullible person and even many of the so called "awakened" people fall into those traps all the time because they can't see the forest for the trees. We all make mistakes, but we live and learn. We can entertain some viewpoints, but if we have enough common sense and logic (combined with intuition), we can also understand what is true and what possibly cannot be. We are constantly being fed lies and bs, but that doesn't mean that everything would be a lie. If we just fall into a rigid belief system we wil not learn more, then we will in fact just become more ignorant instead of becoming more awake and aware.

[daviddjg23]

Different cultures at different times have posited a staggeringly diverse array of worldviews which cannot be easily summed up with the phrase "Flat Earth"nor is the idea of a flat Earth somthing that is exclusive to the Western world.

Even the most cursory historical survey shows that the idea that the Earth is flat has been a notion shared by an extraordinary wide range of cultures and tied to vastly different metaphysical systems and cosmologys.

It was a common belief in ancient Greece,as well as in India,China and in a wide range of indigenous cultures or "pre state" cultures.Both the poets Homer and Hesiod described a flat Earth.This was maintained by Thales,considered by many one of the first philosophers,Lucretius,an avowed materialist,as well as Democritus,the founder of atomic theory.

The ancient Greek conception,in turn,has some parallels with that of early Egyption and Mesopotamian thought,with both thinking that the Earth was a large disc surrounded by a gigantic body of water.The ancient Chinese were also virtually unanimous in their view of the Earth's flatness,although-in this system-the heavens were spherical and the Earth was square.

A number of ancient Indian conceptions,common-with some degree of variation-to ancient Hinduism,Jainism and Buddism,tie their cosmography to botanical images,with the Earth being comprised of four continents surrounding a mountain,akin to the way petals encircle the bud of a flower.Ancient Norse thought postulated a circular flat Earth surrounded by a sea inhabited by a giant serpent.

Others,like the Mountain Arapesh people of Papua New Guinea envisage a world which ends at the horizon,the place where giant clouds gather.But even where commonalities exist across these traditions,vastly different metaphysical and cosmological narratives are at stake.

a spherical disc!!! couldn't be the square in that shadow

Learning is fun but time for me to move on from this subject love you all people have the right to believe what they want but also science has its place now in our modern world so peace and love people

Mod note from Bill:

You copied all that (up to 'a spherical disc") from http://theconversation.com/flat-wron...theories-53808. Please

1. always include links to your references when copying articles or part-articles.
2. make sure you understand what you're copying.

Eratosthenes PROVED the earth was spherical 2,250 years ago. Of course, it took some other cultures a while to catch up on that news.