27 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"Maybe you can't feel it, but I can."

I might like that more than I should.

Expand full comment

'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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Your turn. Disprove it.

Expand full comment

I am ignoring the reference to gravity.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

SPOILER: With modern zoom cameras, the tops re-appear.

Expand full comment

For how long? Forever? Can you still see the tops when the ships are 200 miles off shore?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Not even in the same state, let alone the ballpark. Not remotely a "failed test," just more Internet hogwash passing as "information."

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

What did you think of the video he came out with today?

Expand full comment

Dan, I need you to chill out and back off of my Substack. I don't want to ban you, but you are dominating the conversation in appropriately, and it's time to take a step back. Thanks.

Expand full comment

sure thing.

Expand full comment

Dan,

Do you question any of his claims (or insinuations actually)?

Are you interested in learning more about what he says, for instance about Jarle Andhoy?

"...Yarle Andehoy and his team have been repeatedly turned around at gunpoint, jailed and fined for daring to attempt." Can you really know that this is true? Is it actually?

https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2022/01/the-berserk-incident/

Expand full comment

Well, at least we can fly to the moon, and bounce around up there, and return safely.

Or we could before we cleaned up the warehouse, and accidentally tossed that technology out with the cat litter. But circumnavigating the south pole of our own planet can't be done because it's too cold, and we just don't care to do so, and won't let anyone else do so either.

Expand full comment