ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
I first heard of that 35 years ago, and for the following 30 years, that's what I thought it was: a joke. Now I realize they are deadly serious!
I don't know how they can believe the way they do in this day and age, but I'm quite certain that insulting their beliefs is a poor way to change them.
I don't know how they can believe the way they do in this day and age, but I'm quite certain that insulting their beliefs is a poor way to change them.
Pambie · 22-25, F
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP Well, they won't be reasonable or make any attempt to actually think about their beliefs, so what else have we got?
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
@Pambie letting someone who understands deal w/them
It fills some other need, they don’t really believe that actual thing. Or rather the actual truth of the thing isn’t what matters
What matters is how it being true makes them feel
It doesn’t matter to them if the Earth is flat or not. What matters is that they’ve been lied to but we’re smart enough to wake up and see what others couldn’t
Or it’s a comforting proof of God
In their minds at least
What matters is how it being true makes them feel
It doesn’t matter to them if the Earth is flat or not. What matters is that they’ve been lied to but we’re smart enough to wake up and see what others couldn’t
Or it’s a comforting proof of God
In their minds at least
Pambie · 22-25, F
@PalteseMalconFunch I think this might be the answer. It isn't about what's true, but about what "feels right" which, I have to admit, is just batshit bonkers from my perspective. I'd always rather know the truth, especially when it's upsetting or inconvenient.
PalteseMalconFunch · 36-40, T
@Pambie I spent a lot of time with flat earthers because I wanted to understand
SomeMichGuy · M
Yes, you have it exactly right.
These people didn't grow up with "the Earth is flat" being a generally-accepted proposition which was only changed in the last few years...
I think some just are screwing with the rest of us, but some appear to be "true believers"--and as to these latter, I have neither answer nor explanation.
These people didn't grow up with "the Earth is flat" being a generally-accepted proposition which was only changed in the last few years...
I think some just are screwing with the rest of us, but some appear to be "true believers"--and as to these latter, I have neither answer nor explanation.
View 3 more replies »
SomeMichGuy · M
@Pambie Really? You need to read all the words...
You seem to have missed the ending of "did":
So I said that our current flat-Earthers, the ones about whom you wrote, did NOT grow up with something.
What is that "something"?
<something> =
{ "the Earth is flat" being a generally-accepted proposition which was only changed in the last few years...}
They did NOT grow up with the notion of a flat Earth being newly/recently changed. You agree that this is ancient knowledge, so you have to agree that they did NOT grow up with the idea of a cherished belief being recently dashed.
I never said that a non-flat Earth is recent knowledge.
You seem to have missed the ending of "did":
These people [the flat-Earthers]
didn't grow up
with...<something>
(Emphasis, annotation, and phrase replacement added.)didn't grow up
with...<something>
So I said that our current flat-Earthers, the ones about whom you wrote, did NOT grow up with something.
What is that "something"?
<something> =
{ "the Earth is flat" being a generally-accepted proposition which was only changed in the last few years...}
They did NOT grow up with the notion of a flat Earth being newly/recently changed. You agree that this is ancient knowledge, so you have to agree that they did NOT grow up with the idea of a cherished belief being recently dashed.
I never said that a non-flat Earth is recent knowledge.
Pambie · 22-25, F
@SomeMichGuy What is your point here? Do you know how to make yourself clear? The fact is they're wrong.; the Earth is NOT flat.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Yourwildestdreams · 51-55, M
Here’s an interesting article that may help explain it from a psychological perspective .
“Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,”
“Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories
“Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,”
“Instead, many turn to conspiracy theories to fulfill deprived motivational needs and make sense of distress and impairment.”
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/06/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories
Khenpal1 · M
east-west is ok , but north -south ???
SomeMichGuy · M
@Pambie Ah, so you mean continue along the great circle route:
go N along some longitude line at α degrees E or W until you hit the N pole,
then continue by going along the longitude line which is the supplementary angle in the "other" hemisphere--(180 - α) W or E‐‐toward the S.
I think "go E or W along a constant parallel of latitude and you'll be back where you started", for any point on the planet, is compelling enough...
But the shape of the gravitational potential / force around the earth is compelling, too.
go N along some longitude line at α degrees E or W until you hit the N pole,
then continue by going along the longitude line which is the supplementary angle in the "other" hemisphere--(180 - α) W or E‐‐toward the S.
I think "go E or W along a constant parallel of latitude and you'll be back where you started", for any point on the planet, is compelling enough...
But the shape of the gravitational potential / force around the earth is compelling, too.
Pambie · 22-25, F
@SomeMichGuy What does gravity have to do with it? Start on any random point on the surface of a sphere - any sphere - and if you keep going in one straight direction, eventually you'll get back to where you started.
SomeMichGuy · M
@Pambie
Yes, geometry gets you that, just as measuring triangles on the surface of the Earth.
But the shape is the shape of a real object, with mass, and the shape of the mass distribution also affects gravity.
Spherical symmetry -> 1/r^2 dependence
Cylindrical symmetry -> 1/r dependence*
Cartesian "symmetry" (flat plate) -> constant field*
*For infinite cylinders or plates, this holds everywhere. For finite bodies, tjis is most true at the center.
And for any body, if one is "sufficiently close", to the surface, the field is approximately constant (equivalently, the potential surfaces close to the body exactly reproduce the shape of the body).
Of course, the lack of observations of any edge ought to be compelling, but these people aren't into reason.
Yes, geometry gets you that, just as measuring triangles on the surface of the Earth.
But the shape is the shape of a real object, with mass, and the shape of the mass distribution also affects gravity.
Spherical symmetry -> 1/r^2 dependence
Cylindrical symmetry -> 1/r dependence*
Cartesian "symmetry" (flat plate) -> constant field*
*For infinite cylinders or plates, this holds everywhere. For finite bodies, tjis is most true at the center.
And for any body, if one is "sufficiently close", to the surface, the field is approximately constant (equivalently, the potential surfaces close to the body exactly reproduce the shape of the body).
Of course, the lack of observations of any edge ought to be compelling, but these people aren't into reason.
AllycatAD · 26-30
or that we actually live in some sort of computer driven simulation or Matrix
However that could explain part of the paranormal
However that could explain part of the paranormal
Pambie · 22-25, F
@GeniUs Your original comment was:
My response was that the idea didn't explain anything at all, and for the reasons I gave, so there is no "could" about this; it's not possible. At all.
Up to God? If anything, our reality being a "simulation" would make God the 'Grand Programmer', and wouldn't explain God, but would give Him something to do, something to create.
That would explain everything, from where did my keys go - through ghosts, aliens, multiverse - up to god.
My response was that the idea didn't explain anything at all, and for the reasons I gave, so there is no "could" about this; it's not possible. At all.
Up to God? If anything, our reality being a "simulation" would make God the 'Grand Programmer', and wouldn't explain God, but would give Him something to do, something to create.
GeniUs · 56-60, M
@Pambie
And yes 'god' would be the programmer; 'The Why Files' does an excellent video on this and he finishes off with that statement and also a twist but you'll have to watch it to find that out.
@GeniUs Your original comment was:
That would explain everything, from where did my keys go - through ghosts, aliens, multiverse - up to god.
My response was that the idea didn't explain anything at all
But it would explain everything. Your argument is that it doesn't exist which I hadn't got round to challenging at that point but if this were a simulation anything could happen, anything.That would explain everything, from where did my keys go - through ghosts, aliens, multiverse - up to god.
My response was that the idea didn't explain anything at all
And yes 'god' would be the programmer; 'The Why Files' does an excellent video on this and he finishes off with that statement and also a twist but you'll have to watch it to find that out.
jackson55 · M
Why doesn’t the ocean run off the edge ?
