I did not watch your video
Was sharing my story about the Cult Dumb@$$@$ I"ve met that share to not believe basic fact
I've viewed earth from over 50,000 feet and have seen curvature with my own eyes.
I do not have to prove anything to anybody anytime
You r on your own dude....
A Harris, post: 358191, member: 81 wrote: I did not watch your video
Was sharing my story about the Cult Dumb@$$@$ I"ve met that share to not believe basic fact
I've viewed earth from over 50,000 feet and have seen curvature with my own eyes.
I do not have to prove anything to anybody anytime
You r on your own dude....
50K feet, eh? That's pretty high. Well then, my video has nothing of interest for you. Was that before or after you got your flat earth college degree? This is good practice before I open up the comments on YouTube. They'd eat you alive over there A H. You'll be safe over here among friends.
I checked the thumbs this morning. Over 100 views so far with 13 up against 9 down. Really? I'm learning lessons I didn't see coming. I literally thought I would mention my video here which would unleash the gates of hell on those flatearthers. I have to agree with AH above, I'm on my own ..... dudes 😉
Eratosthenes is spinning in his tomb.
I did some work in North Jersey, to help a Mount Laurel office, several years ago. Many miles of control and railroad cross sections.
Yes Moe, we have lots of rail here in NJ. Hey what did you think of how I "included" Erotatosthenes in my vid ?
I like to invite flat earthers and hollow earthers to the same party then sit back and watch the fireworks.
WildT2, post: 358201, member: 530 wrote: Yes Moe, we have lots of rail here in NJ. Hey what did you think of how I "included" Erotatosthenes in my vid ?
i do not have the time to watch it, but the dialog within this newsgroup made me think of eratosthenes right away
Moe Shetty, post: 358205, member: 138 wrote: i do not have the time to watch it, but the dialog within this newsgroup made me think of eratosthenes right away
Oh, well according to the FE-ers, he didn't exist and they set out to "prove" that .... while most of us accept he existed only because we're told he existed .... right along with the whole list of historic figures and stories we committed to memory long ago.
James Fleming, post: 358204, member: 136 wrote: I like to invite flat earthers and hollow earthers to the same party then sit back and watch the fireworks.
Oh no, hollow earthers? Really? Ok now : )
What's that, like "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" ?
To comment or not to comment... Always a conundrum for me.
Okay, I'll comment.
First of all, I have yet to watch the video of the original post. I am interested in seeing it, however I find it hard for me to watch a youtube video that is longer than about 15 minutes. It is my own restlessness and not anything else that causes this problem for me, but it is, nonetheless, my problem. anyway...
There are many, many things in this world that people believe to be true solely because they've been told that they are true. I'm not talking about things like the colour of the sky or the the fact that fire can burn you or that gravity pulls things "down". Those are things that almost all people have directly observed and will accept (usually, there are always exceptions).
But there are things that we accept solely because it is what was taught to us. I think that most people accept that George Washington was the first president of the United States. But I don't think that anyone alive today was there to see him get elected and take office. Same thing about Columbus sailing across the Atlantic looking for shorter route to the Orient. That happened long before anyone alive today was born. Yet most accept this as true. How about ol' Isaac Newton? He came up with a lot of true ideas about motion long before we were here.
We only "know" that these things are true because they are written down in books and taught as being true. We cannot verify the truth or falsity of any of these people and the things they supposedly did by any other means than by accepting what is told to us (via books and such). So there is a great deal of knowledge that is only known because history books "say so". Of course, with things like Washington and Columbus and Newton, there is a great deal of writing that agrees on the facts presented. We have presidential documents signed by Washington. Newton's laws of motion can be verified by experimentation today. And we have Columbus Day. Well, that last one is dumb, but you get the picture. There is a lot of other evidence that supports the truth of many historical events that we cannot directly observe that will tell us that they are, in fact, true.
The point is that one doesn't need to verify for themselves the truth or falsity of every single thing. There is no point in my going through the vast amounts of number theory just so I can accept that 2+2=4. That piece of information fits my observations of the world around me and so I accept it as true. I've never been at a high enough altitude to actually see clear curvature of the earth, but I've seen video from space craft, I've read about astrophysics and how/why planets become round, I've learned about other aspects of physics, and it all adds up to demonstrate to me that what I've been told (i.e. that the earth is round, not flat) is true.
The problem comes in when conflicting information is presented as true. Obviously, there are "flat-earthers" that claim that the earth is flat. They have their "evidence" that leads them to believe this. To someone that believes the earth is round, the idea that it is flat is completely absurd. But to someone that either hasn't had opportunity to learn one way or another, the idea that the earth is flat does make a sort of sense. And at that point, this person has one group telling them that the earth is flat (and giving reasons) and another (larger) group telling them that the earth is round (and giving other reasons). One would hope that the larger and more verifiable body of evidence that the earth is round would win out in convincing this person, but that isn't always so. And often this comes down to who and what an individual trusts.
And this is my point here. There is a vast body of knowledge that most people accept as true simply because they've been told it is true. And if the person presenting this information is trustworthy, the knowledge is accepted as true, even if it isn't. It is up to each individual to search for supporting evidence for anything to determine whether or not something they've been told is actually true or not.
[MEDIA=youtube]jgF_ycCmF18[/MEDIA]
Does anybody really care?
skwyd, post: 358256, member: 6874 wrote: To comment or not to comment... Always a conundrum for me.
Okay, I'll comment.
First of all, I have yet to watch the video of the original post. I am interested in seeing it, however I find it hard for me to watch a youtube video that is longer than about 15 minutes. It is my own restlessness and not anything else that causes this problem for me, but it is, nonetheless, my problem. anyway...
There are many, many things in this world that people believe to be true solely because they've been told that they are true. I'm not talking about things like the colour of the sky or the the fact that fire can burn you or that gravity pulls things "down". Those are things that almost all people have directly observed and will accept (usually, there are always exceptions).
But there are things that we accept solely because it is what was taught to us. I think that most people accept that George Washington was the first president of the United States. But I don't think that anyone alive today was there to see him get elected and take office. Same thing about Columbus sailing across the Atlantic looking for shorter route to the Orient. That happened long before anyone alive today was born. Yet most accept this as true. How about ol' Isaac Newton? He came up with a lot of true ideas about motion long before we were here.
We only "know" that these things are true because they are written down in books and taught as being true. We cannot verify the truth or falsity of any of these people and the things they supposedly did by any other means than by accepting what is told to us (via books and such). So there is a great deal of knowledge that is only known because history books "say so". Of course, with things like Washington and Columbus and Newton, there is a great deal of writing that agrees on the facts presented. We have presidential documents signed by Washington. Newton's laws of motion can be verified by experimentation today. And we have Columbus Day. Well, that last one is dumb, but you get the picture. There is a lot of other evidence that supports the truth of many historical events that we cannot directly observe that will tell us that they are, in fact, true.
The point is that one doesn't need to verify for themselves the truth or falsity of every single thing. There is no point in my going through the vast amounts of number theory just so I can accept that 2+2=4. That piece of information fits my observations of the world around me and so I accept it as true. I've never been at a high enough altitude to actually see clear curvature of the earth, but I've seen video from space craft, I've read about astrophysics and how/why planets become round, I've learned about other aspects of physics, and it all adds up to demonstrate to me that what I've been told (i.e. that the earth is round, not flat) is true.
The problem comes in when conflicting information is presented as true. Obviously, there are "flat-earthers" that claim that the earth is flat. They have their "evidence" that leads them to believe this. To someone that believes the earth is round, the idea that it is flat is completely absurd. But to someone that either hasn't had opportunity to learn one way or another, the idea that the earth is flat does make a sort of sense. And at that point, this person has one group telling them that the earth is flat (and giving reasons) and another (larger) group telling them that the earth is round (and giving other reasons). One would hope that the larger and more verifiable body of evidence that the earth is round would win out in convincing this person, but that isn't always so. And often this comes down to who and what an individual trusts.
And this is my point here. There is a vast body of knowledge that most people accept as true simply because they've been told it is true. And if the person presenting this information is trustworthy, the knowledge is accepted as true, even if it isn't. It is up to each individual to search for supporting evidence for anything to determine whether or not something they've been told is actually true or not.
Well, the other day, I went to the field and had some notes that said in 1880 James Jonah Jameson Jr. set a stone with a 1/4 marked on it, and I found a stone a bit smaller than he said in a deep hole marked with a 1/4, I don't think anyone had ever been to it, or looked for it in a long time if ever, considering the massive conspiracy that would be needed to phony in those old notes, make up a plat, and then go to the field just before I got there, then make up a stone and put it into the little wash at the same time antiquing it, just so I can find it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I suppose James Jonah Jameson Jr could be a fiction, but I kinda doubt it.
If the earth is really flat; why do we have waterfalls?
RADAR, post: 358275, member: 413 wrote: If the earth is really flat; why do we have waterfalls?
Or Sofia Vergara?
skwyd, post: 358256, member: 6874 wrote: To comment or not to comment... Always a conundrum for me.
Okay, I'll comment.
First of all, I have yet to watch the video of the original post. I am interested in seeing it, however I find it hard for me to watch a youtube video that is longer than about 15 minutes. It is my own restlessness and not anything else that causes this problem for me, but it is, nonetheless, my problem. anyway...
There are many, many things in this world that people believe to be true solely because they've been told that they are true. I'm not talking about things like the colour of the sky or the the fact that fire can burn you or that gravity pulls things "down". Those are things that almost all people have directly observed and will accept (usually, there are always exceptions).
But there are things that we accept solely because it is what was taught to us. I think that most people accept that George Washington was the first president of the United States. But I don't think that anyone alive today was there to see him get elected and take office. Same thing about Columbus sailing across the Atlantic looking for shorter route to the Orient. That happened long before anyone alive today was born. Yet most accept this as true. How about ol' Isaac Newton? He came up with a lot of true ideas about motion long before we were here.
We only "know" that these things are true because they are written down in books and taught as being true. We cannot verify the truth or falsity of any of these people and the things they supposedly did by any other means than by accepting what is told to us (via books and such). So there is a great deal of knowledge that is only known because history books "say so". Of course, with things like Washington and Columbus and Newton, there is a great deal of writing that agrees on the facts presented. We have presidential documents signed by Washington. Newton's laws of motion can be verified by experimentation today. And we have Columbus Day. Well, that last one is dumb, but you get the picture. There is a lot of other evidence that supports the truth of many historical events that we cannot directly observe that will tell us that they are, in fact, true.
The point is that one doesn't need to verify for themselves the truth or falsity of every single thing. There is no point in my going through the vast amounts of number theory just so I can accept that 2+2=4. That piece of information fits my observations of the world around me and so I accept it as true. I've never been at a high enough altitude to actually see clear curvature of the earth, but I've seen video from space craft, I've read about astrophysics and how/why planets become round, I've learned about other aspects of physics, and it all adds up to demonstrate to me that what I've been told (i.e. that the earth is round, not flat) is true.
The problem comes in when conflicting information is presented as true. Obviously, there are "flat-earthers" that claim that the earth is flat. They have their "evidence" that leads them to believe this. To someone that believes the earth is round, the idea that it is flat is completely absurd. But to someone that either hasn't had opportunity to learn one way or another, the idea that the earth is flat does make a sort of sense. And at that point, this person has one group telling them that the earth is flat (and giving reasons) and another (larger) group telling them that the earth is round (and giving other reasons). One would hope that the larger and more verifiable body of evidence that the earth is round would win out in convincing this person, but that isn't always so. And often this comes down to who and what an individual trusts.
And this is my point here. There is a vast body of knowledge that most people accept as true simply because they've been told it is true. And if the person presenting this information is trustworthy, the knowledge is accepted as true, even if it isn't. It is up to each individual to search for supporting evidence for anything to determine whether or not something they've been told is actually true or not.
Um, though not specifically stated, my invitation for comments applied to the video which seemed to be a reasonable implication within the context of my post above, but thanks for sharing your views on how we come to know what we think we know. Much of what you wrote I would agree with, while some, maybe not so much.
I believe this a political issue, just like the climate change.
😛
MightyMoe, post: 358274, member: 700 wrote: Well, the other day, I went to the field and had some notes that said in 1880 James Jonah Jameson Jr. set a stone with a 1/4 marked on it, and I found a stone a bit smaller than he said in a deep hole marked with a 1/4, I don't think anyone had ever been to it, or looked for it in a long time if ever, considering the massive conspiracy that would be needed to phony in those old notes, make up a plat, and then go to the field just before I got there, then make up a stone and put it into the little wash at the same time antiquing it, just so I can find it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I suppose James Jonah Jameson Jr could be a fiction, but I kinda doubt it.
Nicely put. Essentially I give examples like that concerning geodetic surveying over the centuries involving many thousands of people all around the world. I implicate us surveyors as the number one conspirators in their absurd thinking.
There's plenty of evidence for a round earth to suit me, but Eratosthenes little exercise is NOT part of it.
Given his data, he could either a) calculate the diameter of an assumedly round earth under an assumedly very distant sun, or b) calculate the distance to the sun from an assumedly flat earth.
