Your Alt-Reality Is Boring......A plea for more interesting alt-realities than the Moon Landing Hoax, Flat Earth, and No Virus.
(barsoom.substack.com)
** THERE WILL BE A QUIZ **
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (257)
sorted by:
Yes, really, even though they haven't made so compelling of arguments that I would say definitively the earth is a topographical map, these issues revolving around atmosphere adjacent to a vacuum and the electrostatic gradient do REQUIRE containment to be consistent with physical laws that are known and well established.
Why it's important to me boils down more to the philosophical questions over the scientific, something that the modern names that we would look to acknowledge that they preferred the heliocentric models because the geocentric models would have the philosophical implications that the earth was special and placed their by a "God". Further, for me, it's about understanding the universe in the greatest capacity that my smooth brain can comprehend (I am an engineer, only to say that I'm not stupid as I often claimed of people who would entertain the concepts, shit, not even really a year ago).
You may not be aware, but the heliocentric and geocentric stellar model works equally well and only represents a change in the center point, the heliocentric model is just a simpler calculation.
(Edited only spacing to fit in one quote block) Now this part is why I agree that GAW is not really an appropriate forum, and generally agree with the mods that this should be kept at conspiracies.win instead, NOT because the topics don't have merits worthy of debate or discussion but because part of our role is in redpilling normies to the primary issues of human trafficking, vaccines, and the elites who ultimately want to kill off the majority of us all. The only reason I'm even raising these is that it's one of the few times where it was context appropriate to the OP.
People who are raising the topics where they would explicitly be out of context, IMO, are assholes, like in a knitting forum as you raised. Again, I agree that in terms of Q related discussion, an argument can be made where the topic does fit, but I agree with the general mod opinion that it doesn't belong, even if for a different reason (my view is that it will make it easier to smear us all as "Qanons and flat earthers"). However, the germ vs terrain theory does fit more closely with Q topics because of the past couple years and the vaxx issue.
Agreed completely, and why I don't bring up the topics unless the OP is relevant, and don't create topics on those lines. However, I've grown far less antagonistic, so when the thread context applies, I will bring up my opinions. If you look through the thread, I even mention to ashlandog that I agree with why they should keep these topics "on a short leash".
This line is where things get tricky... especially in the context of how often we've been told to "trust the science" these past few years when it was clearly not science.... and similarly discussion of the earth and its place in the universe relies heavily on trusting the science. When there are points of scrutiny that are simply dismissed because we've been taught about the globe from kindergarten, and have come to accept it.
The implication of the earth being flat is, essentially, God is real.
But oddly enough, that's an argument I don't see flat earthers trying to make. Like they haven't bothered thinking out the implications of their conspiracy.
Or that, if you could prove God is real by proving the earth is flat, that faith wouldn't be necessary and thus the entire point of all current Christian doctrine would be moot.
I'm no scientist.
But then again, neither are flat earthers.
Einstein says gravity is space and time warped around mass, and that mass is simply following a straight line in the path of least resistance.
If that's the case, then containment of atmosphere is not necessary. It's held in place by gravity, which is the space time warp around the planet mass.
That's the problem with flat earther gobbledygook pseudo science. The mere idea that atmosphere needs to be "contained" is inconsistent with known science. If they're asking how it's contained, they don't understand. They're reducing the problem to what they know and understand, like how a jar might contain high pressure air and how that air escapes when the lid is taken off, without any thought given to how gravity isn't a significant part of that example.
Or better yet, they can come to the realization that some things are unknowable, and picking a side and arguing it to death to the point of obnoxiousness on internet forums is a hill not worth dying on (unless that's their job because they're paid).
IMO at least, flat earthers tend to avoid making biblical arguments because the people looking to scientific arguments lean towards atheistic and so a biblical argument would be refuted as "unscientific."
I'm something in that middle range, the ideal would be something consistent with biblical views but consistent with scientific principles.
In a sense at least.
Don't worry, I'm just an engineer... BUT, as far as astrophysics goes, Special relativity only works as Einstein described for 5% of the observable universe, so, the scientists, in order to maintain Relativity, had to create the concepts of dark matter and dark energy (dark matter adds mass without any EM signature and dark energy to add extra repulsion without EM signature) in order to maintain Einstein's theories to the observation.
What relativity states is that the mass of an object bends the "space-time" around that object, but that concept is at odds with quantum theories where electrostatics (from electrons that is 10^48 times more powerful than gravity claims to be). So, the "flat earther gobbledygook" is actually a more elegant solution where the electrostatic effect, density and buoyancy generates a far more elegant solution, except that it requires that the atmosphere is contained. That all doesn't mean that there aren't other planets or that travelling between planets is impossible, just that it's not something that can be done through chemical propulsion (consider, in a vacuum, chemical propulsion doesn't work because there's nothing to push against, ).
Gravity is described as a weak force that doesn't exist at the quantum level, except for the Higgs boson that is what provides a mass to the particles and even then is a reification of special relativity and not a proven concept that applies at any macro scale. The problem with the globe earth model as that is concerned is that heat and high pressures will move into lower pressure and temperature systems when they interact and the force of that goes beyond the force of gravity (I've been standing at the air intake of an HVAC system where I felt both the heat of the furnace AND the suction of the air flow which was counter-intuitive because the heater was about 10ft away)
This part I can agree with because I understand that as a system increases in scale it also increases in complexity and usually to a greater extent than the increase in scale).