SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

What's on the other side of the ice dam? How high up does the dam go? Why has no one photographed or explored this area?

---

I seem to recall hearing before that many flat earthers think there's a new set of continents and oceans on the other side of the ice dam, with their own sun and moon. As for why this has never been verified, I believe that's where new conspiracy theories come into play about government's keeping such exploration from occurring.

I'd be curious as to how they explain how someone could board a plane at the equator, fly in a straight line along the equator, only to end up back in the same spot as where they started.

I know I just got sucked in because this type of person is interesting, but at what point should we not be debating this poster? So far they have given answers to questions (not always satisfactory ones) and not said anything truly terrible (which I appreciate). But at what point are we empowering their denial of something Humans have known for about 2000 years? We probably won't be able to change this type of person's mind, but we might be adding ammunition to their belifs and their buddies at the next meet up.
Of course there are always long debates about evolution and a young Earth here so I guess we've already crossed that threshold of science deniers, so what does crossing this threshold matter? I almost included climate change in my previous sentence, but didn't want to start another debate.

AstroAg17 said:

---

It seems like the Southern Hemisphere in such a system would be much colder.

---

Well this is cute. But how do they argue I can drive east without turning my steering wheel?

Cute but unworkable. Rotate it 90 degrees so you're looking parallel to the earth's plane in the image. Imagine the sun over it. Every point on the plane has line of sight to the sun. If the sun is a sphere, and radiating light in all directions, then the sun would never set. There's no reason for the "day" projection to be a circular projection onto the plane - unless the sun has a shroud around it, limiting the angles that light can come from it.

Quote:

---

There aren't a significant number of them and I think the nature of their hypothesis limits their number.

---

I don't know about that. You can find them all around the world.

Thanks for keeping your post brief and limiting yourself to 3 questions.

Q1:
I haven't seen any problems addressed related to Maxwell's equations or the divergence theorem not working on a flat earth. Something I have seen mentioned is how the earth's magnetic field may be analogous to an axially magnetized ring magnet. A flat earth map with magnetic declination lines can be found at 3:10 into this video The shape of the magnetic field is described at 12:40 into the video.

Q2:
The other planets and the moon are like stars, lights in the sky, part of an electromagnetic array. Planets are unlike stars because their motion is not fixed relative to the stars. The planets and moon are not spheres. I'm still researching the origins of things. Some celestial things may have come into existence at a certain time, but the earth itself may be eternal, without origin.

Q3:
I partially answered your third question in my reply to swimmerbabe11 at 10:45pm. The short answer is "more land." I quoted Edwin Burtt, Alfred Whitehead, and John Gray, and referenced Gilles Deleuze and Paul Virilio. These writers echo each other in how they assert that the earth is of primary importance to one's thinking in general. Specifically, and practically as swimmerbabe11 put it, there are social and psychological implications to how error and stupidity relate to thought.

Asking why would anyone care and what's the motive are the two questions asked the most in conversations about this.

Those questions are sometimes worded as, "What's the point," as in what's the point of caring about the earth, and what's the point of a deception about earth.

Some context on pointless statements:
"What we're plagued by these days isn't any blocking of communication, but pointless statements. But what we call the meaning of a statement is its point. That's the only definition of meaning, and it comes to the same thing as a statement's novelty. You can listen to people for hours, but what's the point?...That's why arguments are such a strain, why there's never any point arguing. You can't just tell someone what they're saying is pointless. So you tell them it's wrong. But what someone says is never wrong, the problem isn't that some things are wrong, but that they are stupid and irrelevant. That they've already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity, the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth. Not as substitutes for truth, but as the measure of truth of what I'm saying. It's the same in mathematics: Poincare used to say that mathematical theories are completely irrelevant, pointless. He didn't say they were wrong that wouldn't have been so bad."
Gilles Deleuze, 1990

Asking for motive is different than asking why is the shape of earth important. A cover up would mean there wasn't mistakes made in thinking but a malevolence perpetrating a deception. Again, Gilles Deleuze offers some context in chapter 3, The Image of Thought, of his book Difference & Repetition from 1968. He explains how madness, stupidity, and malevolence have been reduced to error in a dogmatic "image of thought." Reducing those three things to a single figure of error produces a weak concept.

Peter Sloterdijk's 1999 book Spheres Volume 2: Globes, translated into English in 2014, explains in the prologue "Intense Idyll," pages 13-43, how the globe came to dominance first philosophically then later technologically, and it was not an intentional deception but rather a pentecostal expression and coping mechanism for ancient Greeks. He cites Otto Brendel's 1936 book "Symbolism of the Sphere." https://archive.org/details/OttoBrendelSymbolismoftheSphere. A version of the introduction "Geometry in the Monstrous: The Project of Metaphysical Globalization," pages 45-134, is found here https://archive.org/details/SloterdijkGeometryInTheColossal

"The delusions to seek something outside...space travel ideologies...remain unstable, shakeable autohypnotic projects against a background of futility." Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres Volume 2: Globes (1999 tr.2014) pages 777-79

So, there may be malevolent deception perpetrated by a small number of people at the top of hierarchies. They may use bribes and non-disclosure agreements to prevent whistleblowers. But, based on Gilles Deleuze's and Peter Sloterdijk's analysis of thought, it may also be the case that malevalent deception doesn't explain everything and stupidity and madness need to be addressed.

How does satellite TV work?

how do flat eathers explain the coriolis effect?

k2aggie07, swimmerbabe11, AstroAg17, dargscisyhp, SoulSlaveAG2005, Aggrad08, Quad Dog, PacifistAg, schmendeler

What convinced you earth is curved and moving?

What are your responses to how I posed the problem in terms of ontology?

I made statements concerning ontology on how a deception like this could happen, and why the figure of a globe became dominant that referred to Edwin Burtt, Alfred Whitehead, John Gray, Paul Virilio, Gilles Deleuze, Peter Sloterdijk or Otto Brendel.

I will add 5 names to the 7 I already gave, Bruno Latour, Joseph Miller, Gerald Prince, Eduard Dijksterhuis, and Tristan Garcia. Their statements also apply to why the picture, view, and theory of the world matter that lead to problems of ontology. "What is one committed to with a particular set of beliefs, or acceptance of a particular theory of the world?" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology

Earth viewed from outer space creates cognitive dissonance.
- Bruno Latour, 2018
Earth viewed from outer space is diabolical.
- Joseph Miller, 2012
Earth viewed from outer space is pure fantasy.
- Gerald Prince, 1983
Earth viewed from outer space is delusional.
- Peter Sloterdijk, 1999

Millions of people all over the world have seen one of the unsettling space-ship or satellite photographs. They provide a distant and detached perspective on the earth with a vengeance. To be, or to pretend to be, wholly detached and objective is, nevertheless, perhaps diabolical.
- Joseph Hillis Miller, How To (Un)Globe the Earth in Four Easy Lessons, (2012)

In such a planetary view, where earth is viewed as if from out in space...creates a cognitive dissonance since there is no commensurability between the lived experience of being situated in the critical zone and the image provided by the planetary view.
- Bruno Latour et al., "Giving Depth to the Surface an Exercise in the Gaia-graphy of Critical Zones." (2018)

Judith Miller and James Blish do not consider space adventure stories as science fiction. Bradbury writes pure fantasy.
- Gerald Prince, How New is New?, (1983)

The delusions to seek something outside...space travel ideologies...remain unstable, shakeable autohypnotic projects against a background of futility.
- Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres Volume 2: Globes, (1999)

The ultimate view of the world explained by philosophy relates to the fundamental laws explained by science.

Curvature of water around an object resulting in a sphere, like an example mentioned by Eduard Dijksterhuis of a point in a void, is an example from mechanics that is "never confirmed by everyday experience, and whose direct experimental verification is fundamentally impossible."

"Classical mechanics, with its principle of inertia and its proportionality of force and acceleration, makes assertions which not only are never confirmed by everyday experience, but whose direct experimental verification is fundamentally impossible: one cannot indeed introduce a material point all by itself into an infinite void and then cause a force that is constant in direction and magnitude to act on it; it is not even possible to attach any rational meaning to the formulation. And of all the experiments by means of which textbooks of mechanics are wont to prove the fundamental law of dynamics not a single one has ever been carried out in practice."
Eduard Dijksterhuis, 1950

This thread in the "Philosophy & Religion" forum is a good place to explore how philosophy and ontology relate to science.

The philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Tristan Garcia are described as kinds of "flat ontology."

"In Planetary being, the earth has become flat again."
Gilles Deleuze, 1974

"This is the flat world of the no-matter-what."
Tristan Garcia, 2010

"The elementary forces of war and strife, language and thought, love and death comprised the great powers of myths and religions, poetry and art, science and philosophy. But the technology at work in all of these powers brings about a generalized planning that ushers in their crisis, and it raises the question of their planetary destiny. It is as if one and the same time a single code persists, the code of technology, and yet there is no longer any code capable of covering the whole of the social field. In Planetary being, the earth has become flat again. However, this leveling of dimensions previously filled by such powers, this flattening that reduces things in beings to the unidimensional-- in a word, this nihilism, has the most bizarre effect: it revitalizes the elementary forces in the raw play of all their dimensions; it liberates the unthought nothing in the counter-power which is multi-dimensional play."
Gilles Deleuze, 1974

"The flat world, where no thing is more important than another, supposes neither an abstraction nor a reduction, neither asceticism nor critique, neither genealogy nor deconstruction, but a simple levelling. The flat world is neither more nor less real than the planes on which what matters to us plays out, where things are exchanged, where we give them or receive them, where there are so many variable intensities. This is the flat world of the no-matter-what."
Tristan Garcia, 2010

k2aggie07, swimmerbabe11, AstroAg17, dargscisyhp, SoulSlaveAG2005, Aggrad08, Quad Dog, PacifistAg:

What are your responses to how I posed the problem using Edwin Burtt, Alfred Whitehead, John Gray, Paul Virilio, Gilles Deleuze, Peter Sloterdijk, Otto Brendel, Bruno Latour, Joseph Miller, Gerald Prince, Eduard Dijksterhuis, and Tristan Garcia?

We asked you a bunch of empirical based questions and you tried to answer them by quoting a long list of philosophers. I for one find that inadequate.

I'm convinced the Earth is curved because I can't see downtown Houston from my house.
I'm convinced the Earth is moving for a lot of reasons, but simply because I've experience seasons, different lengths of day, and eclipses.

However, full disclosure, I've also taken pictures from a satellite and seen a round Earth. So I guess I'm one of the ones contributing to cognitive dissonance somehow.

Don't give me vague answers quoting people I don't care about. I'm convinced for reasons too long to list. But in short, it comports with all our physical and mathematical models as well as first-hand experience,it can be viewed clearly by satellite, without cognitive dissonance despite your quotes.

Answer the questions posed directly and individually, don't dismiss them categorically or with a vague quote. Answers K2's question about light from the sun. Answer my question about going east to west without turning. Answer the questions about satellites. Go one by one.

125,000 people are directly employed in the space industry. Please explain how they make a living if the earth is flat?

Quote:

---

Judith Miller and James Blish do not consider space adventure stories as science fiction. Bradbury writes pure fantasy.

- Gerald Prince, How New is New?, (1983)

---

I don't really see why this quote is relevant?

Why do I care how a reporter and an author classify my favorite author's books? Bradbury's writing is more grounded in reality than Blish anyway.

You just used a whole bunch of words and said absolutely nothing.

Edited on the advise of swimmy.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

be nice or he won't play any more!!!!

---

Mea culpa.
Edited

If you spent more than 30 seconds arguing with Flatty McDiskman, he has already won. You may as well have been trying to explain the gospel to Satan, or explain QM to Schroedinger's cat.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Nobody is arguing! We are learning!

The whole point of posting on a forum like this is learning and entertainment. I would be incredibly entertained to watch you explain things to Schroedinger's cat... and even more amused if the cat tried to argue back.

---

Yeah, I kinda wanna know what happens if you cut a canal through Antarctica. Does all the water drain out, or does it refreeze really quickly. And if it does run out, does it fall somewhere?

Stupid question that I'm sure I knew the answer to in highschool, but isn't gravity caused by the centrifugal force of the earth spinning? If it doesn't rotate, what causes gravity?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Stupid question that I'm sure I knew the answer to in highschool, but isn't gravity caused by the centrifugal force of the earth spinning? If it doesn't rotate, what causes gravity?

---

Gravity is caused by the mass of matter bending space. Think of a bowling ball resting on the surface of a trampoline. But the surface of the trampoline is 3 dimensional rather than a "flat" plane.

how do they deal with this?

nice, thanks!