[talk.religion.newage] The flat earth

smith@cos.UUCP (12/03/87)

In article <9578@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) writes:

[Flat Earth stuff]

This article has found its ideal home in alt.flame.  It contains no
facts, no experimental results, no logical arguments.  It DOES contain
innuendos, delusions of persecution, claims of Divine Right, and all the
other Good Stuff that we've come to expect here.

The only purposes that I can find for this entire point of view are 

1.  Mr. Jolly has been bitten with the bug that "if I can come up with a
    logical argument, then it must be right".  Note that this is the
    same thing that he is complaining about.

2.  Mr. Jolly likes to start arguments, and doesn't really care what
    they're about.

I suspect the second.  -- 
                           __
 -- Steve          /      /  \      /         "Truth is stranger than
S. G. Smith      I \ O    |  _    O \ I        fiction because fiction
smith@cos.com      /      \__/      /          has to make sense."

vonn@wind.bellcore.com (Vonn Marsch) (12/07/87)

In article <590@cos.COM> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes:
>In article <9578@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) writes:
>
>[Flat Earth stuff]
>
>This article has found its ideal home in alt.flame.  It contains no
>facts, no experimental results, no logical arguments.  It DOES contain
>innuendos, delusions of persecution, claims of Divine Right, and all the
>other Good Stuff that we've come to expect here.
>
>The only purposes that I can find for this entire point of view are 
>
>1.  Mr. Jolly has been bitten with the bug that "if I can come up with a
>    logical argument, then it must be right".  Note that this is the
>    same thing that he is complaining about.
>
>2.  Mr. Jolly likes to start arguments, and doesn't really care what
>    they're about.
>
>I suspect the second.  -- 
>                           __
You've made a stronger case for Bret than he possibly could have *dreamed*.

You "scientific" types don't even follow your own rules in defeating an
idea based on its own merits or weaknesses. Instead you censure its
origin and unfairly question the sanitiy and intelligence of your
opponent. 

After all, this is supposed to be the most open-minded network group; 
where anyone is supposed to be able to present their beliefs for the
purpose of discussion amongst equals, and you resort to the same tactics
that I'm sure even you are quick to condemn. Remember, when Columbus
thought the earth was round THEY THOUGHT HE WAS CRAZY. I bet you'de
flame him as well.

O.K., so the earth is round. All this stuff about a flat earth is bull.
You win. We, who gave the theory a try, who went around for a day or so
thinking "what if it was flat?" wasted our time and aren't you smart
for dismissing the idea out of hand. Yup, I musta' been *crazy* to 
challenge modern scientific thought; I'll never do it again. As well,
I might as well not even think about whether the ideas of Astology, ESP,
Atlantis, Crystals, Witchcraft are valid; that's the kind of stuff
that only little kids and crazy people think about. And just because
Christianity, with its sado-masochistic schema, has done more harm than
any other single concept in the history of the Earth; it is, after all,
the presently accepted religion in the U.S. and this "paganism" stuff is
just conjured up by power-mongers to control people and schiesters
to profit from the gullible. Besides, if I question the accepted beliefs
of my society, people might think I'm as crazy as Mr. Jolly (obviously)
is; or worse that I'm trying to start an argument(!).

---------------------------------------------
"In a sane world, an insane man *seems* insane."

vonn
 

madd@bu-cs.UUCP (12/08/87)

In article <4084@bellcore.bellcore.com> vonn@wind.UUCP (Vonn Marsch) writes:
>O.K., so the earth is round. All this stuff about a flat earth is bull.
>You win. We, who gave the theory a try, who went around for a day or so
>thinking "what if it was flat?" wasted our time and aren't you smart
>for dismissing the idea out of hand. Yup, I musta' been *crazy* to 
>challenge modern scientific thought; I'll never do it again. As well,
>I might as well not even think about whether the ideas of Astology, ESP,
>Atlantis, Crystals, Witchcraft are valid; that's the kind of stuff
>that only little kids and crazy people think about.

About the flat earth stuff:  It's easy to show the earth is spherical
and also to find it's diameter.  All you have to do is take the angle
of the sun to the earth in relation to two lines (preferably
perpendicular).  Like, angle of sun to earth along longitudinal and
latitudinal lines (ie north-south and east-west).

Do this at three points widely separated (same hemisphere) at the same
time on the same day and look at the data you get.  The discrepancies
in the data will give you the angles necessary to project to the
center of the earth.  The geometry and math is simple so it is left as
an excercise to the reader.

I won't get into all the other things.

It's true that it can be good to question accepted scientific fact but
in some cases you have to be reasonable.  It's EASY to show the earth
is not flat.  Just try the above and see.

Honestly, I'd love to hear a flat earth description that describes the
seasonal angular differences between the sun and the earth and
retrograde motion of the planets.  I think it would be interesting to
listen to.

Cheers,

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu

karl@haddock.UUCP (12/08/87)

[I suspect this is of little interest to t.r.n; followups to alt.flame only.]

In article <4084@bellcore.bellcore.com> vonn@wind.UUCP (Vonn Marsch) writes:
>Remember, when Columbus thought the earth was round THEY THOUGHT HE WAS
>CRAZY. I bet you'de flame him as well.

I don't know if they thought he was crazy, but they certainly thought he was
wrong.  Which he was.

Not because he believed the earth was round; that was already common knowledge
among educated people.  But his "small-earth-large-india" theory was very
wrong, and he probably would have died at sea if he hadn't had the dumb luck
to stumble onto an unexpected continent.

len@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Leonard P Levine) (12/10/87)

In article <17127@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buita.UUCP (Jim Frost) writes:
>About the flat earth stuff:  It's easy to show the earth is spherical
>and also to find it's diameter.  All you have to do is take the angle
>of the sun to the earth in relation to two lines (preferably
>perpendicular).  Like, angle of sun to earth along longitudinal and
>latitudinal lines (ie north-south and east-west).
>
>Do this at three points widely separated (same hemisphere) at the same
>time on the same day and look at the data you get.  The discrepancies
>in the data will give you the angles necessary to project to the
>center of the earth.  The geometry and math is simple so it is left as
>an excercise to the reader.

Sorry, Jim, although I am not a flat earther, the same data can be 
interpreted by assuming a flat earth, and locating the sun close to
the earth.  It is easier to show with a figure.  The classical experiment
was done by noting that on a given day the sun shone to the bottom of a
well at noon in one city (Alexandria?) and did not do so in another
(Cairo?).  Draw a flat earth, two wells, the sun near the earth and
you will see that the same picture develops (no pun) as with a round
earth and the sun far away.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O fillers please stop.  In 1932 the state of Nebraska produced 1 1/2 pounds
of dry edible beans for every man, woman and child in the United States.
Len

jr@lf-server-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson) (12/10/87)

In article  <17127@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) writes:
>About the flat earth stuff:  It's easy to show the earth is spherical
>and also to find it's diameter.  All you have to do is take the angle
>of the sun to the earth in relation to two lines (preferably
>perpendicular).  Like, angle of sun to earth along longitudinal and
>latitudinal lines (ie north-south and east-west).
>
>Do this at three points widely separated (same hemisphere) at the same
>time on the same day and look at the data you get.  The discrepancies
>in the data will give you the angles necessary to project to the
>center of the earth.  The geometry and math is simple so it is left as
>an excercise to the reader.

I think it's not too hard to find the circularity in this argument if
one tries.  Why assume that sunlight travels in straight lines?  If
the earth is flat, what does a line of longitude or latitude really
mean?  What do you mean talking about hemispheres?  I'm not going to
construct the whole alternative mechanics, but in principle you can
get a consistent flat-earth theory if you also revise some assumptions
that are taken so for granted you might not have considered them to be
assumptions (but to many they may have been in the fifteenth century).

Of course, this is exactly what happens when you take the round-earth,
solar system, galaxies and big bang model and try to make it
consistent.  Indeed, light has to travel in bent lines and parallel
lines have to sometimes meet for the current (most popular) cosmology
to be consistent with observation.  And there are several competing
theories for the structure of things on beyond general relativity,
each with their vocal adherents.  11 dimensions?  Come now!

The principle of Occam has to apply - given two theories which explain
a set of observations, you should trust the simpler one.  In our
experience, what with moon landings and whole-earth photographs, the
flat-earth theory begins to turn into a conspiracy theory of the
grandest order.

In the end, however, all we are doing is looking for consistency
between theory and observation.  Improved observations let us detect
better theories (in Occam's sense) as history progresses, but
alternative theories are still that.

Did you know that gravitation is a sham?  The earth is expanding at an
ever-increasing rate; its acceleration is 32 feet/sec/sec!
-- 
/jr
jr@bbn.com or jr@bbn.uucp

troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (12/10/87)

In article <17127@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buita.UUCP (Jim Frost) writes:
>
>About the flat earth stuff:  It's easy to show the earth is spherical
>and also to find it's diameter.  All you have to do is take the angle
>of the sun to the earth in relation to two lines (preferably
>perpendicular).  Like, angle of sun to earth along longitudinal and
>latitudinal lines (ie north-south and east-west).
>
>Do this at three points widely separated (same hemisphere) at the same
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>time on the same day and look at the data you get.  The discrepancies
>in the data will give you the angles necessary to project to the
>center of the earth. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HO! HO! HO! Just because you believe in this round earth silliness doesn't
mean you can use circular (spherical? :-)) reasoning. This technique you
describe (which was used by Eratosthenes) gives you the diameter of the
earth *assuming* that the earth is spherical. 

It is ironic that round earthers always resort to simple fallacies involving
geometry, when geometry is the arena in which the chaos of modern round earth
based physics is most apparent. Curved space-time with curvature varying from
point to point! With an indefinite metric tensor! First four, then ten, then
twenty-six dimensions! *NO PATH* assignable to the motion of a particle, such
as an electron! (Honest, that's what they say!)

There's no need to be afraid. You round earth scientists won't lose your
jobs in the coming platygaean reformation. Round earth science will still
be needed because it provides solutions (via ad hoc methods, to be sure)
to vital practical problems. But isn't it time to admit that the theory has
dissolved into incoherent mumbo-jumbo? That the shaky round earth hypothesis
will no longer support the weight of the theories erected upon it?

Also, for the scientists who are not afraid to leave their childhood
prejudices behind them, these are exciting times. The foundations of platy-
gaean science are just now being laid. Wouldn't you like to join in?

                /           
Bret Jolly (Bo'-ret Tro Ly)  Mathemagus   LA Platygaean Society
             .

madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (12/11/87)

In article <3838@uwmcsd1.UUCP> len@csd4.milw.wisc.edu.UUCP (Leonard P Levine) writes:
>In article <17127@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buita.UUCP (Jim Frost) writes:
[proving the earth is round via measurements from different areas]
>Sorry, Jim, although I am not a flat earther, the same data can be 
>interpreted by assuming a flat earth, and locating the sun close to
>the earth.

Yea, you're right.  Didn't think of that.  However, you could always
time sunsets at different places using a universal clock.  They would
be roughly the same using a flat earth theory (although it would be
interesting to know where the sun goes at night) while they'd vary
considerably with a round earth.

Looking forward to someone showing me how you could get the same
results with a flat earth....

tiny jim
madd@bu-it.bu.edu
Home of Dribble, The Automated Dribble Flamer

esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) (12/11/87)

In article <9796@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) writes:

Dumb Stuff

>
>Also, for the scientists who are not afraid to leave their childhood
>prejudices behind them, these are exciting times. The foundations of platy-
>gaean science are just now being laid. Wouldn't you like to join in?
>
>                /           
>Bret Jolly (Bo'-ret Tro Ly)  Mathemagus   LA Platygaean Society
>             .

Ive been reading this flat earth crap for the last 3 weeks, and I have
a comment:

YOU ARE ALL COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN MINDS!!!!!!!!

This is the kinda thing that makes you wonder... Is america so stupid
that it realy could elect Pat Robertson as President??

It makes it difficult to sleep at night.

When platypusium or whatever is taught in american schools ill be 
posting from utzoo.




--
In Real Life:			UUCP: ...ihnp4!codas!ufcsv!beach.cis.ufl.edu!esj
Eric S. Johnson II              Internet: esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu
University of Florida           "Your species is always dying and suffering" -Q

tristan@reed.UUCP (Fred Q Pizza) (12/12/87)

In article <9737@ufcsv.cis.ufl.EDU> esj@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes:
>Dumb Stuff
>Ive been reading this flat earth crap for the last 3 weeks, and I have
>a comment:

>YOU ARE ALL COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN MINDS!!!!!!!!

>This is the kinda thing that makes you wonder... Is america so stupid
>that it realy could elect Pat Robertson as President??

Well i don't see why not, america certainly proved it's lack of intelligence
when it elected Ronald the Clown not once, but twice.  As Mark Russell
commented:
(paraphrased)
 
       It was interesting to watch the election returns (1984), because, right
up until the Minnesota returns came in there was only one electoral district
which voted for Mondale.  The District of Columbia was a flashing red amid a
sea of blue on the map.  It was almost as if Washington, DC was sending out an
SOS.  As if they knew something that we didn't.

	Oh well, you know what the great thing about America is:  
if ya don't like the president, wait four years and you can get a worse one.

                                    Fred Q Pizza
                                         -Noted Brockian Ultra-Cricket Player

UE4@PSUVMA.BITNET (Dan Schultz) (12/13/87)

In article <3838@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, len@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Leonard P Levine) says:
>
>In article <17127@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@buita.UUCP (Jim Frost) writes:
>>About the flat earth stuff:  It's easy to show the earth is spherical
>>and also to find it's diameter. . . .
>
>Sorry, Jim, although I am not a flat earther, the same data can be
>interpreted by assuming a flat earth, and locating the sun close to
>the earth.  It is easier to show with a figure.  The classical experiment
>was done by noting that on a given day the sun shone to the bottom of a
>well at noon in one city (Alexandria?) and did not do so in another
>(Cairo?).  Draw a flat earth, two wells, the sun near the earth and
>you will see that the same picture develops (no pun) as with a round
>earth and the sun far away.
     
Except that paralax measurements show that the sun _is_ far away (^95,000,000
miles (-:).  So your "flat-earth/near-sun" solution isn't worth a load of
fetid dingo's kidneys.
-------
Daniel B. Schultz
     
    "Please report to the nearest disintigration booth.
     Thank you.  Have a nice day."
     

UE4@PSUVMA.BITNET (Dan Schultz) (12/13/87)

In article <350@lf-jr.BBN.COM>, jr@lf-server-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson) says:
>
>
>Did you know that gravitation is a sham?  The earth is expanding at an
>ever-increasing rate; its acceleration is 32 feet/sec/sec!
     
Did you know that John Robinson's brain was a sham?  It's receeding from
reality at an ever-increasing rate; its acceleartion is 32 feet/sec/sec!
     
-------
Daniel B. Schultz
     
    "Please report to the nearest disintigration booth.
     Thank you.  Have a nice day."