Does anyone really think the earth is flat?

Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by Eavesdrop, May 15, 2018.

  1. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    science has the backing that it usually works, (and ALL knowledge is probability to begin with.)
    religions are just a whole bunch of people agreeing with each other to say they pretend the same things about things no one actually knows anything about.
    those things, or something like them, might very well actually exist, but their doing so, is completely independent and unrelated, to what any belief claims to know.

    (in case you haven't checked lately, government and science aren't exactly joined at the hip either. science isn't some writ from on high. its people having the guts to ask the next question, often at personal, social and even physical risk to themselves, from the disaproval of those whom logic contradicts what they wish to pretend)

    (taking anything for granted without questioning it, is precisely what science is NOT)
     
    Noserider and MeAgain like this.
  2. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    I disagree. Science is nothing but an organised system of ignorance. Science consistently closes the doors or sweeps under the carpet what doesn't fit their agenda or theories. If something doesn't add up, it is swept away rather quickly and dismissed as a falsehood. Much like the futuristic glass found under the sea off of Canada recently, carbon dating dated it to be 3000 years in the future. Of course this doesn't make sense so science threw it under the bus as some false hood, but they've no since realised that product can date into the future if a thermo nuclear event had taken place as now researched in the Egyptian deserts and borders of India and Turkey where we know significant destruction has taken place to turn the desert into glass.

    But it doesn't fit what science thinks it knows, so nobody hears about it.

    A system of ignorance designed in ways to control society and to limit their knowledge of our past, present and future.
     
  3. lode

    lode Banned

    Messages:
    21,697
    Likes Received:
    1,677
    That's almost exactly the plot from the 50's horror film Terror From the Year 5000.

     
    Irminsul likes this.
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,779
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    So why are you using a computer which only came about due to advances in science and technology?
     
    themnax and Noserider like this.
  5. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    Lol. :tearsofjoy:

    Oh man, that's a good one.

    We understand our technology, we came up with it. Technology has nothing to do with the anomalies found on earth, in oceans or even in the universe and space. That's the ignorance of it, science only functions on mathematics and structures that we came up with in the first place, on earth. So when an anomaly arises and it doesn't fit in to our already pre determined formula, it's just dismissed and nothing really every happens to it.

    Personally I do not give two hoots about what's out there in space, I wish they'd explore all the oceans thoroughly and see what they can find. New continents are being found submerged and we don't hear about it. New lost cities. I don't care about some dirt ball moon they find. I say let's explore the limits of our own planet before we go trying to find others. :)

    Unless they're out there... Then we need to put the research into finding aliens. Which we obviously already do as to why so interested in space. But just come out with it already.
     
  6. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    That's sort of occasionally true.

    It's typically the case when the "science" is funded by a private organization or government agency. For example, a scientist might ask, "Is fracking harmful to the environment?" Whereas an oil company might ask a scientist, "Prove that fracking isn't harmful to the environment." See the difference? One is a simple, innocent and objective question with no bias; the other is an attempt to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. So, naturally, when you already have the answer to the question, you just cherry pick the data that supports your answer.

    Problem is, this isn't science. These findings are virtually never submitted for peer review because they know the findings would be rejected. I can prove Seinfeld is a show about Junior Mints if I ignore all but one episode. But a true Seinfeld fan would know I was full of it. Well, no one is more critical and skeptical about scientific findings than other scientists. Big corporations put these lackey scientists on their payroll to prove the statement they've already made to fool the public. But the information is out there because these notions are almost immediately disproved by unbiased researchers combing through decades of science that already say the exact opposite.

    Science is uncorrupted and incorruptible as a discipline. But, yes, certain scientists will sell their integrity for the almighty dollar, but they usually ostracized and rejected by the scientific community.
     
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,779
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Irminsul,
    May I disagree with your premise, or would you take offense?
    Lately I have been discovering that some posters on this site think I'm attacking them personally if I offer conflicting opinions or facts about what they've posted.

    I disagree with your entire first paragraph, but I won't comment unless you wish me to.
     
  8. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    You can disagree with me I won't be offended. I'm used to people not agreeing with me. Story of my life. :p though I can't possibly see what you can bring to the table to change my mind. I know science is lying about our history. I know our history isn't what's written in books. I know that almost everything outside of earth, in space, is pure theory, so we can dismiss away any theory until proven fact and they really can't prove a lot of what they say. It's just theories and hypothesis I mean honestly if watching science shows taught me anything it's that's there's several "theories" about certain things and not one of them can be proved right or wrong, you just pick a theory and dedicate your life to it.

    Ignorance I do declare!

    But me typing away on my phone has nothing to do with what I'm talking about or arguing against. I'm talking about the origins of the solar system etc. I wanna know why, science gives so much credit to ancient civilisations knowledge of the solar system and dismiss the anomalies that they find as "oh, they believed this and that" and regard it with no merit simply because it would deconstruct the foundations of their system.

    Much like how science dismisses mythology as fantasy yet some of most important archialogical finds have come from chasing mythological texts. Like Troy and a more recent city found under the ocean they discovered from studying myth. They weren't theories the ancients had, they were factual places with factual evidence but science wouldn't fund a study because finding these things erases their knowledge of known history.

    You believe what they want you to believe. No doubts about it.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  9. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
  10. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    So pretty much what I thought all along, a theory is the framework of observations and facts. And certainly I already don't agree with what they call factual and I believe they don't either that must be why we have a plethora of scientific "theories" regarding the creations of the universe? Their observations and facts are so oblique between science factions that nobody can agree with the next person and a new "theory" is generated to fill the gaps and voids that the previous theory couldn't answer. Now if that isn't a legit system of ignorance I don't know what is lol. Just making things up as they go along trying to piece together what they think works.

    It just makes me laugh I mean I haven't read every single ancient transcript or anything but I'm willing to bet what they're trying to answer has already been answered and it was written down long ago and it's just dismissed as mythology, just ignorantly pushed aside even with fact that mythology holds a lot of ground with historic evidence etc. as has been proven and documented much more recently with these unconventional scientists which I might add have the same qualifications as the rest of the scientists yet they are frowned upon and made fun of because like me, they don't agree, and they have the knowledge and education to make their mind up themselves and they say wait a minute.... And by then, mainstream science sweeps them under a carpet as a laughing joke...

    I'm telling ya, our history is shielded from us, remember me when we old and grey and truth reveals, if it even takes that long. You remember Irm OK? You remember that crazy dingbat :p that old oddball, she was on to sumthang. I don't think it'll take that long either, especially after the new discoveries found in Aztec pyramids such as liquid metal found at crazy depth in underground chambers. A liquid metal that can only be fabricated by means of which no ancient culture would have ever had the technology.

    One day we're going to know what pyramids were all about, and it won't be burial tombs. And they're going to be much older than anticipated too. They won't keep us distracted with ice findings on the moon to keep us busy.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,779
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Cool.
    First of all when you talk about history you have to understand what history is.
    History is the study of the written past. Anything that predates writing is prehistory.
    So the only time hard science really enters into the study of history would be when it's used to verify the authenticity of documents by chemical analysis or some other hard science.

    The study of history at best would be a social science, not a hard natural science.
    The natural sciences are based on repeatable experimentation based on observation. All conclusions in the natural sciences must be supported by peer review. (The experiments must be repeatable and lead to the same results. Water boils at 100 °C (212 °F) at sea level.)

    The social sciences are based on non repeatable observations and begin with an assumption which is added to or subtracted from by observation and analysis. When a historian reads ancient writings he or she draws conclusions based on how the document is interpreted and on an understanding of the society from which it came. Different people can offer different interpretations and understandings of social context. There are no repeatable experiments that can confirm these interpretations.

    So a theory expounded in a social science is much different than a theory offered in a natural science.
    Neither theory in either science however can ever be conclusively proven. That's why it's called science and not dogma.
    Any theory can always be discarded or modified as new information is attained.

    Scientific anomalies only exist when something is found to deviate from the expected norm. Norms in this sense, as opposed to mathematical norms, are simply something that is usual. Just because a scientific explanation for the deviation hasn't yet been found doesn't mean that all of science is invalid.
    The abnormality isn't necessarily dismissed, but the explanation for it may be dismissed if it can't be validated by others in that particular scientific field.
    That is, if it's a true abnormality.

    Science doesn't only function on Earth, as the many moon landings, or various other planetary explorations have proven.
     
  12. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    I don't know. I studied marine biology and geology in school.

    Science is rad.
     
    Irminsul likes this.
  13. McFuddy

    McFuddy Visitor

    MV5BYmFiYjEyMDYtOGU2OS00MDk3LTgzZjQtYzZmNWRhNzIxYTAyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTgzMjQ1NDg@._V1_.jpg
     
  14. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    I almost put, "insert Costanza jokes here." in my post
     
    McFuddy likes this.
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,779
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Scientific facts are those which can be verified by repeatable observation and measurement.
    Theories are built from these verifiable facts, not the other way around.
    So anyone can verify the fact that water boils at 100 °C at sea level. However, there can be an infinite number of theories which explain that fact. Some theories are more plausible than others, or are better supported by other verifiable facts than others.

    Facts don't change, theories that explain those facts can and do.

    Scientists' reputations are built on how well they can justify their own particular theories with known verifiable facts.
    Any "fringe" scientist can become "mainstream" simply by convincing his or her peers of the validity of their theory.

    For example, I have read a few very good books on the Giza complex, including the Great Pyramid. And there are a number of theories as to the origin and function of the Great Pyramid. I like Christopher Dunn's power plant theory as I think it's very original and elegant. However he hasn't been able to convince the mainstream archaeologists as archaeology isn't a natural "hard" science. It requires forming an assumption (theory) that the pyramid was a power plant and then Dunn looks for facts to back up his theory. But the facts he has dug up so far are open to various interpretations that can't be tested at the present time.

    That's the opposite of natural science which identifies facts and then forms the theory.
    So don't confuse different types of science by lumping them all together as one.
     
  16. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    I'm betting the Aztec pyramids were power plants too going off the most recent discoveries under the pyramids. Scientist also note that the formation and positioning of pyramid complexes are hard evidence for our solar system as the positions of the structures themselves are in line with planetary obersvarions. What annoys me is that in one of the Aztec formations there's a another pyramid well away from the main structures that indicates another planet in our solar system twice far away as pluto. But it is simply dismissed because it doesn't make sense to them. That's the ignorance. Whether said planet is still there I'm not sure, ancient literature talks of a planet being destroyed in our solar system. So like you say, if history is only written literature, why is it dismissed so much as fantasy dreams from the ancients. That's what I'm saying. I mean they knew what we only knew in the 70s and they knew it 10,000 years or more ago. That's what upset me. That they knew all this and no one tries to chase it up. Except the new age scientists who try to clear anomalies and I salute them for that. :) because they're trying to get to the bottom of things, rather than make new theories up, perhaps the theories have already been solved.
     
  17. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    i don't know where you're getting this from. what you're describing has nothing to do with science by any meaning of the word.

    i know that some extremist churches try to claim this, possibly some misguided 'teachers' in religious schools, might be trying to call this science.

    by the very definition and meaning of the term, they are either ignorant, deliberately misleading, or simply making it up.
    i feel sorry for their ignorance, but even more sorry for their innocent victims, who are ultimately the human species and this planet it inhabits.

    i know that bureaucratic errors can be made in the process of peer review, from time to time, the scientific community has fallen victim to such,
    but over time, the real process of science, ultimately finds and corrects them.

    unlike beliefs, that imagine themselves cast in amber, this self correcting and improving process, also intrinsic to the real nature of science, is on going and perpetual.
    it is because of this process, that real science has a track record, of conclusions, that while they begin tentative, it is precisely be demonstrating that they actually work,
    that they gain general merit.
     
    Noserider likes this.
  18. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    Seems like you answer your own question there. Me saying that they're ignorant is exactly me saying that I believe they make a lot of stuff up, like dark energy and things alike that aren't proven yet they're calculated into formulas and processed as a given without ever really being proven in the first place.

    But hey as long as you believe it, that's your deal man. I ain't throwing stones, all I said was it's scary how much we don't know yet believe what we can't interpret or even formulate in the first place that's all.
    Doesn't bother me at all what you believe, I'm the one being critiqued for my beliefs. Still at the end of the day, you believe what they tell you. /
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  19. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    its not a question of belief. things aren't 'made up' just to be doing so, but to fit what can be observed, and make useful, and even simplify, the complexity of relationships between observations.
    ideas like dark matter, multiple universes and string theory exist, because the plausably fit. they are not universally accepted until the can be experimentally demonstrated.
    that's why verifying the higs boson what such a big deal. it had been known to be probable for years. but until something can be experimentally verified, it isn't given universal merit.
    same with light bending around planets verifying einstien's 'warped space'.

    science is NOT a 'collection of facts' but a method (that works) for arriving at conclusions (that work also).
     
  20. Irminsul

    Irminsul Valkyrie

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    105
    So if I continue going along like I've been saying, I'll believe it when I see it, then I can't possibly be wrong can I? Because like you're saying, until it's experimentingly verified, it has no merit.

    So that brings me back to my original point, if a theory has yet to be determined to hold ground on this merit, then it is just a theory. Yes? And if so, then like I said, it's scary that so many people attach themselves to this magnificent fantasy world that scientists certainly has provided us, but only in theory. So what I'm reading from you is, pretty much like I've been saying, that science will create forces such as dark energy to fill the void in their pre determined calculations? If something doesn't add up, they will find a theory to coincide or come to take its place.

    So at this moment in time, you could safely admit that you really have no idea, but this "theory" sounds good, I'll roll with that. In whatever scientific discussion you're having.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice