re:"Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication."
re:"Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication."
My thought: True! The amazing thing about the flat vs globe debate is that there are actual, real, believable arguments and counter arguments. However, the tests of the globe model do fail. Those failures get explained away, or are rarely embraced and carried forward, because the ball model can work for navigation, etc. Its not that the ball model has or needs a problem, It just may not be true. I can refer to available books and living authors if you like.
<< However, the tests of the globe model do fail. >>
I would like to see specifically what you're talking about; you seem to be repeating rumors. The "tests of the globe model" are its daily use in navigation, communication, travel, commerce and trade. The time zones all work; the airplanes land at the end of the runway.
Those making this assertion do not USE the globe for anything. It's just a topic of debate or banter. If one uses the planet for specific technical purposes, you see that everything adds up just fine and I can predict what time the Sun will appear on the horizon any morning, anywhere.
The "test" of a model is its ability to make predictions.
Also, are we to believe that civilians who circumnavigate are also part of the psyop?
Last, the "flat" model does not account for anything. For example, using the flat model, describe: equinox; night and day; an eclipse; Mars retrograde. In precise terms, accounting for to-the-degree predictions, timing and measurement -- and not using absurd terms like "eclipse object."
These are all technical questions, and I want technical answers.
I won't have them. But I might be able to liaise. Also, you might be right. The exercise would be just that - an exercise. Probably best to tackle one issue at a time. Firstly, do we have any accounts of polar circumnavigation?
If we do, then we can look at the excuses of the flatters. If we don't, then we can look at the excuses of the globe trotters. All of this after my morning espresso of course, (late).
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80° East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
To conclude, (maybe), I would say the issue is that such a level of deception might be possible. It's not really a fun exercise, or if it is, it probably shouldn't be. I guess it's fun enough to find out what is really going on. If we already know..., well..., even better! What's more fun than that?
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
I was looking for something else, but this just found me. I had seen it before, and posted it some months back. I will put it up on the new DARK BEAVER. What I don't like about it is the production value. It's too high end. Who produced this and why? Anyway, it's related to our discussion, and you might enjoy it:
Tempting. Firstly, I don't have an intellectual or other horse in the race. And like that unhealthy one third of the population that really do destroy the world..., I don't care! So on that basis, I can share what I have been exposed to in the way of ideas. I guess I should ask if we are just talking shape, or that it is a spinning shape. The first failure of the spinning shape is that we don't feel it spinning. So..., and this is actually to the point..., if we don't need to have a spinning shape to explain of physical experience, then why do we need a spin? Oh, right..., because it's not only spinning, but actually hurtling through space. How are we doing so far?
Maybe you can't feel it, but I can. Maybe because we are part of the spin, and have been since conception, it's just the way things are, something that is so ubiquitous that it's not discernible. There are many things you cannot detect with your senses -- trace chemicals, ultraviolet light, the kinds of sounds that bats can hear, and the things that dogs can smell but we cannot. Humans have limited senses and apparently, extremely limited intuition.
'A wide miss, so far, not even in the ballpark. Spinning and motion through space can only be perceived in relationship to frames of reference. On the New York subway, or any similar system, if you are on a train moving 40 mph, next to another train moving at the same speed, your sensation would be of no motion (if you ignore any of the tunnel features) If your train slows down to 35, you'd actually think you're moving backwards. the pull your body feels is entirely a matter of .... GRAVITY.
Quite so. The point is..., we didn't feel spin and then create a hypothesis. We just came up with the idea of spin, and then used it to explain phenomena outside of our realm of experience.
There are women who cannot feel that they are pregnant, and then have a baby. Many people cannot feel when they are thirsty, and then dehydrate. Many cannot feel when they are angry or sad. Subjective "feeling" is not a measure of objective existence.
If you see something moving, then either it's because it's moving, or you are moving, or both. The periodical nature by which celestial bodies appear in the sky would seem to suggest some sort of circular motion, barring them doing all the moving, and you being on a flat plane. And that one is easily disproved.
Yes. You, and I, and the believers all know that. It's just that "easily disproved" part that gets tricky when one actually considers, and looks into, current argument/counter arguments. We can SAY anything. We can say it is easily disproved.
We can come back to spin. So the question becomes..., Why do we need a globe model? The first failure of the globe model, ignoring spin, is it doesn't look round. Ok..., but what about those island guys observing the tops of ships disappear over the horizon? How are we doing?
We can explore this. I am a bit overwhelmed here at the moment. But it is out there if you look into it. Check out the videos and published works of
Eric Dubay. Why are all the smart kids called Eric? I could link you later when I free up, but check it out. Surprisingly convincing arguments. Line of sight vs curvature is just one of many failed tests. I was surprised! As I mentioned earlier, this isn't really my thing, to say the least. I don't need another reason for the neighbours to wonder.
Grab this book. Buy it used. Go to the library. It won't be there, but sometimes the clerks are good looking. At the very least, the book will be hogwash not on the internet.
Cindy and I have thoroughly researched Dubay. "There is no there, there." And I'm not sure your attachment to this non-issue; why exactly do you claim to care so much? The Earth does not need to be "flat" for you to need to watch out for the edge.
re:"Andy Kaufman has an interesting position on science, seemingly having read every study ever written, but declaring that the entire "ball" model of the Earth is wrong, without being able to point to one problem with the "ball" model related to navigation, timekeeping, commerce or communication."
My thought: True! The amazing thing about the flat vs globe debate is that there are actual, real, believable arguments and counter arguments. However, the tests of the globe model do fail. Those failures get explained away, or are rarely embraced and carried forward, because the ball model can work for navigation, etc. Its not that the ball model has or needs a problem, It just may not be true. I can refer to available books and living authors if you like.
<< However, the tests of the globe model do fail. >>
I would like to see specifically what you're talking about; you seem to be repeating rumors. The "tests of the globe model" are its daily use in navigation, communication, travel, commerce and trade. The time zones all work; the airplanes land at the end of the runway.
Those making this assertion do not USE the globe for anything. It's just a topic of debate or banter. If one uses the planet for specific technical purposes, you see that everything adds up just fine and I can predict what time the Sun will appear on the horizon any morning, anywhere.
The "test" of a model is its ability to make predictions.
Also, are we to believe that civilians who circumnavigate are also part of the psyop?
Last, the "flat" model does not account for anything. For example, using the flat model, describe: equinox; night and day; an eclipse; Mars retrograde. In precise terms, accounting for to-the-degree predictions, timing and measurement -- and not using absurd terms like "eclipse object."
These are all technical questions, and I want technical answers.
I won't have them. But I might be able to liaise. Also, you might be right. The exercise would be just that - an exercise. Probably best to tackle one issue at a time. Firstly, do we have any accounts of polar circumnavigation?
If we do, then we can look at the excuses of the flatters. If we don't, then we can look at the excuses of the globe trotters. All of this after my morning espresso of course, (late).
there are a lot of reasons to not fly over Antarctica. Its a very different place than the Arctic region, covered by different international agreements. That said, I do not know that it's actually not done, though if it is not, that is not evidence of its nonexistence.
Agreed. Therein lies the futility of the exercise. Apparently there are 2 models for the shape of the earth. If there are others, no one talks about them. For me, it is huge astounding that both work! By "work", I guess I mean that flaws are excused away. I mean, how is it that something as complicated as navigation could be explained by both models?
First, I don't know your name. Please, introduce yourself.
The "model" has a use; and that use is the tracking of the seasons reliably; the ability to navigate reliably; the ability to keep time, including managing time zones; and the ability to communicate.
Tell me, without looking it up, do you know what sidereal time is?
no. Which proves what?
Because you seem to be arguing that "the world is flat" or that the "sphere earth" is incorrect, I would assume you're familiar with all the types of measurements used to reliably track its movement. You would know, because you are attempting to refute something that works, for all practical purposes -- at the same time you're saying that the model fails.
Maybe you don't understand what a model is. Think of a model bridge, used to test a design. You can test the model, with weights and other stresses. If the model works, it's likely to work in physical reality when built full-scale.
The orbiting earth model works for every actual purpose we give it, and it "fails" in bogus experiments with "zoom lenses" (meaning telephoto). There's a lot of good photo gear out there, and a lot of talented photographers. I have yet to see an image of a ship hundreds of miles off of the coast, taken from sea level.
All "flat earthers" so far, when asked, do not provide evidence of a problem with timekeeping or navigation. If the model fails, I should not be able to tell you that the Sun will rise in Manila at 5:43 am at 80° East, and it does.
My position is that the model fails because it is wrong. That position, is my personal belief based on the reading that I have done. As I mentioned, I am amazed that the globe model, IF wrong, holds up so well. To be clear, I am not pretending to be knowledgeable on the subject. You would be surprised how few people ask me my opinion on the shape of the earth. I leave the details to those more read on the subject. They do exist. I have tried to introduce them to you.
To conclude, (maybe), I would say the issue is that such a level of deception might be possible. It's not really a fun exercise, or if it is, it probably shouldn't be. I guess it's fun enough to find out what is really going on. If we already know..., well..., even better! What's more fun than that?
https://models.com/models
If you are serious, I will attempt to broker a discussion. Actually, why would I? Dan Chapman
I didn't mean to steal bandwidth.
I know this invites a "gotchya" challenge. But we can see where this goes.
The subject must be in the air, wanting to be discussed. Dubay is well schooled on the subject, and the author of at least one book. He just this hour has released a new video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mgH9ZcRbaFdq/
I can't post pix here, so I just created a page for us:
https://conceptualvoice.substack.com/p/shapes
I was looking for something else, but this just found me. I had seen it before, and posted it some months back. I will put it up on the new DARK BEAVER. What I don't like about it is the production value. It's too high end. Who produced this and why? Anyway, it's related to our discussion, and you might enjoy it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/labdmLbBbmQs/
Name one failure of the globe model!
Tempting. Firstly, I don't have an intellectual or other horse in the race. And like that unhealthy one third of the population that really do destroy the world..., I don't care! So on that basis, I can share what I have been exposed to in the way of ideas. I guess I should ask if we are just talking shape, or that it is a spinning shape. The first failure of the spinning shape is that we don't feel it spinning. So..., and this is actually to the point..., if we don't need to have a spinning shape to explain of physical experience, then why do we need a spin? Oh, right..., because it's not only spinning, but actually hurtling through space. How are we doing so far?
Maybe you can't feel it, but I can. Maybe because we are part of the spin, and have been since conception, it's just the way things are, something that is so ubiquitous that it's not discernible. There are many things you cannot detect with your senses -- trace chemicals, ultraviolet light, the kinds of sounds that bats can hear, and the things that dogs can smell but we cannot. Humans have limited senses and apparently, extremely limited intuition.
"Maybe you can't feel it, but I can."
I might like that more than I should.
'A wide miss, so far, not even in the ballpark. Spinning and motion through space can only be perceived in relationship to frames of reference. On the New York subway, or any similar system, if you are on a train moving 40 mph, next to another train moving at the same speed, your sensation would be of no motion (if you ignore any of the tunnel features) If your train slows down to 35, you'd actually think you're moving backwards. the pull your body feels is entirely a matter of .... GRAVITY.
Quite so. The point is..., we didn't feel spin and then create a hypothesis. We just came up with the idea of spin, and then used it to explain phenomena outside of our realm of experience.
There are women who cannot feel that they are pregnant, and then have a baby. Many people cannot feel when they are thirsty, and then dehydrate. Many cannot feel when they are angry or sad. Subjective "feeling" is not a measure of objective existence.
If you see something moving, then either it's because it's moving, or you are moving, or both. The periodical nature by which celestial bodies appear in the sky would seem to suggest some sort of circular motion, barring them doing all the moving, and you being on a flat plane. And that one is easily disproved.
Yes. You, and I, and the believers all know that. It's just that "easily disproved" part that gets tricky when one actually considers, and looks into, current argument/counter arguments. We can SAY anything. We can say it is easily disproved.
Your turn. Disprove it.
I am ignoring the reference to gravity.
We can come back to spin. So the question becomes..., Why do we need a globe model? The first failure of the globe model, ignoring spin, is it doesn't look round. Ok..., but what about those island guys observing the tops of ships disappear over the horizon? How are we doing?
SPOILER: With modern zoom cameras, the tops re-appear.
For how long? Forever? Can you still see the tops when the ships are 200 miles off shore?
We can explore this. I am a bit overwhelmed here at the moment. But it is out there if you look into it. Check out the videos and published works of
Eric Dubay. Why are all the smart kids called Eric? I could link you later when I free up, but check it out. Surprisingly convincing arguments. Line of sight vs curvature is just one of many failed tests. I was surprised! As I mentioned earlier, this isn't really my thing, to say the least. I don't need another reason for the neighbours to wonder.
Not even in the same state, let alone the ballpark. Not remotely a "failed test," just more Internet hogwash passing as "information."
Grab this book. Buy it used. Go to the library. It won't be there, but sometimes the clerks are good looking. At the very least, the book will be hogwash not on the internet.
see:
https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-FAQ-Eric-Dubay/dp/1365221768/ref=sr_1_1?crid=WNAQU5JMSI32&keywords=eric+dubay&qid=1693087503&sprefix=eric+dubay%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1
Cindy and I have thoroughly researched Dubay. "There is no there, there." And I'm not sure your attachment to this non-issue; why exactly do you claim to care so much? The Earth does not need to be "flat" for you to need to watch out for the edge.
What did you think of the video he came out with today?