Selene wrote:On the archeological intended use/sarcasm, I really didn't see that, no, sorry for any confusion then.
You did not understand me. It wasn't sarcasm. It was a play on words. There is a difference. If you wanted me to just correct it, I could have done that in the first place, and I could have just apologized for making a miscalculation in writing. Or even a plain error! Anyway, I really do apologize for it, especially since it seems to have caused this massive struggle in communication between us that we are facing now. Can we be optimistic and assume some good can still come from this? I hope so.
It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.
Glad we agree then; that's exactly what I'm saying the whole time (not even restricted here, also Nepal and with Nazca). Do not take the impossible leap from "some faked examples" to the absolutist view on "everything is fake
without ever seeing the samples/evidence".
Right. But I have not taken that view. Instead, you have continually clawed and struck at that view and accused me of taking it. When I say I haven't, you insist I have.
And I am all in favour of free speech, I am anarchist, a libertarian, what do you think? But then logically also the free speech to correct speech that makes a fool out of one, one who I consider a serious investigator (you, ICfreely and Ataraxia as the examples I mentioned).
There's no bad motive involved in any of my comments, trust me. Can you try to trust me as a normal person, using the internet to express his thoughts?
We'll see. So far, I just think you have a serious misunderstanding of not just me but the English language.
hoi.polloi wrote:Selene wrote:<yes, of course this is a fake image, it may even serve some reading researchers to spot and point out the fakery and have one more clue in our hands>
The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so
You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.
So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly
fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.
It is still a type of reasoning used. It comes from NASA, so...
Used by whom?
How to prove the Earth is spherical?
1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat
1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.
*sigh*, for the sake of completeness then:
- book a couple of flights
- stay awake during these flights, looking out of the window
- observe day and night
- use the velocity and angular velocity to calculate distances
- see if you can fly EW all around
- see if you can fly across the poles
- map out everything you see
- build a model consistent with
all your observations
- let's discuss that model and how you came from your observations to that specific spherical/flat/cylindrical/butterfly-shaped/whatever model for the Earth
That doesn't seem a proper workflow to you?
Yes, that is much better. However, some of these questions are very difficult for the average person to answer. We especially welcome evidence that can be researched more easily. How many people have actually flown across both poles, for example?
We know the Earth loops and that the light is consistent with a looping cosmos "above". This has already been discussed. If perhaps you read the "Cold of Space and Our Universe that isn't" thread all the way through, you would see this point was already made, and that it still an explanation for many theories (besides the most common one(s) espoused) according to those theories. Have I said I am completely swayed by them?
I think I have even mentioned how the Earth being mapped to a ball shape is a very
useful model. (Even claiming many things NASA claims can be
useful.) However, many have discovered it is not the end of the conversation about Earth's shape, as much as you would seem to like it to be. Let us admit when we don't know, when we speculate and when we are leaping to conclusions. I think for all your education and smarts (and intelligent writing style) you could still stand to learn a little bit about this.
2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?
2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.
Are we exercising a course in sofistry or trying to find out the truth about our blue-green planet (or whatever it is supposed to be in another model)?
Perhaps we are exercising sophistry if we're not going to read the threads that have already been posted on these topics and pretend they don't exist or we don't have the time to read them, and we're not going to respect ways of approaching the sciences more delicately.
3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??
3. The right questions to ask.
Thanks! Positive words.
If you must judge everything I say as "positive" and "negative" I worry we aren't going anywhere.
4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.
4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.
It draws the attention. Consciously and unconsciously we describe, [analyze] and investigate everything around us on the premise the Earth is a (flattened/near-) sphere. All those phenomena we now explain using that spherical model have to be satisfactorily explained in another model as well, do we agree?
Not really. Typically, in our society, models contradict one another until one emerges "victorious". I find this a very vainglorious way of exercising science. Admitting we don't know is a more useful statement and perhaps more powerful position. So is, in my estimation, the amazing exercise of holding two or more contradictory ideas in your head at once rather than bullheadedly insisting you know
the way.
5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.
<map of Earth published in 1630>
Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)
If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.
That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?
Now you're creating a straw man and tear it down.
My reasoning IS NOT: "It was true then, so it must be true now", please...
My reasoning IS: "If the shapes of the continents were studied, mapped and used for 450+ years and we have uncorrupted evidence of it, why did NOBODY in the last 450 years who was sailing those vast oceans between the continents complain "these maps are fraudulent"?"
You basically rephrased what you said you are not saying. I am saying there have been plenty of mistakes in the past and it's a poor argument to use "establishment" as the best evidence. Of
course this does not diminish your point. Of course, we should
look at all documents. That is the point, I believe, of CluesForum (as insanely ambitious as that may be) helping people learn how to do that on their own. However, it's obnoxious that you seem to expect constant reinforcement of the ones
you choose.
Dear ex-contributor Heiwa (I still miss his witty well-argumented posts) was sailing the oceans for years. Do you think he's part of some cover-up to hide the real shapes of the continents or can we at least agree on relying on some hard data in life??
The best hard data is what one can contribute and have others understand well, also. Saying "I am an expert" doesn't work. Saying "he's an expert" is even worse. Do you qualify a lot of soft data as "hard" just because it appears in print?
Please bear in mind I am not saying science is a bad method. The problem is how much it is abused, and how
little people actually contribute while whining that something isn't believed as much as someone else believes it.
We are looking for actual hard data, not soft data called hard.
And anyway, where is yours in the Dinohoax thread? I am still waiting.
So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?
Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.
I am wondering about scientific arguments against plate tectonics or tectonics, do you have some to share? I don't know them?
It's not "embrace". Why you use wording like that? Which other mechanism you propose to explain the observations? Faults, fractures, folds, foreland basins, orogens, uplift, erosion, up to the tiniest mineral growth observed indicating historical fault slip, which model do you propose to explain all that, if tectonics is not the mechanism??
Sorry, but it was a long time ago. I suggest you open your mind and look into it while I look into your tectonics glossary and why you believe so strongly in it. What I recall from high school was the idea that the theory was developed in the early part of last century, despite its controversial ideas, and that it was emphasized over and over, with every lesson, "nobody
really knows how the world actually works because it's too hard to measure". This was not a Christian or conservative school but a public school. Since that time, I've seen a few different globe theories, many of which concern themselves with the
mystery of how continents formed, changed and moved. These are fascinating things, but I believe they should be respected as mysteries being addressed by
various scientific approaches with various
biases until it is explained to me in a different way that
there can only be finally one explanation. Feel free to educate us on the history of how plate tectonics theory developed and we can see if it sounds like sound science or not.
I personally admit I don't know and I need to hear more about each theory. But I am concerned that you can't admit when you don't know, and even worse, you can't explain
in your own terms why you believe something. Nor do you show much desire to. That makes me a bit suspicious of how you arrive at your conclusions. I am fine with "tectonics" (which I have assumed you said to mean "plate tectonics" but correct me if you meant the more general study) and leaving it undiscussed and we can just assume you know what you say you know about it. But when you use that as an argument for something else like so-called, so-far unproven "dinosaurs", then your expertise comes into question and when you can't allow that for whatever reason, it makes your expertise look meaningless.
Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.
That's the whole problem. The beauty of the Earth compared to astronomical subjects is that you are able to study it yourself! You are free to visit fossil sites, ask questions to paleontologists (not the Horner-Sereno clowns) and all. It's all open and available, for the most part; fossil sites in North Korea may be a challenge.
I agree here. It's worth looking into.
And as evidence there are thousands and thousands of publications. To say "there's no evidence" shows a lack of interest in the topic. But if you reject every publication, because you already have your own position carved in 90 million years old limestone, then nothing will ever convince you...
You haven't actually posted any publication, and I really don't know why you are focused on it. Is it because now you just want to win some argument you perceive is happening?
My greater concern on this forum is to examine claims. If you have no claims to present, you can just be content with your knowledge never being questioned, and that might be just fine for you. But then, why post here?
And the one who keeps evading my questions is not me.
- Which animals lived during these times??
- Where are their fossils?
- Dinos no, what then?
- Birds didn't evolve from reptiles, so where do they come from?
- Who faked aaaallll those fossil sites, fossils, everything. Up to a level serious scientists are fooled by it!
- Nobody speaks up, out, every individual paleontologist, amateur or professional, is part of the scam? With the "huge" financial gains involved, yeah....?
- What's the motive, the gain, the benefit worth the risk and the huge investments?
Paleontology is not a FOX fakery factory. Even if clownesque creeps with that field of experience (Sereno, Horner, the Jurassic Park/World propaganda) appear on that channel. Or any other that doesn't allitterate that well...
Some of your questions are more than rhetorical and may have been addressed, and before I even attempt them, I'd like to see evidence you can understand me and we speak the same language. So far, it has been quite a struggle.
You do seem to frame a lot of questions with a lot of assumptions. By saying, "Who lived during the age of _______?" you actually imply that this age took place with all the assumptions that it means
to you alone rather than what those years mean to different belief systems or possibilities. I could challenge you by asking unanswerable questions as well using my exclusive terms, but I don't. That's not why I post. I want to create greater open transparent communication.
This isn't exactly a place to be "educated" as much as it is a place to be "de-educated" so we can learn
how to learn again. Your methods remind me strongly of "education" and I suspect you received a strong one. However, that might not match the use of this forum. Does that make sense?
And please, please, for the love of whatever you hold dear, stop reading
into my posts finding things I haven't said. And just try
reading them. That would be much appreciated. Thanks!