• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flat Earth on the ballot? Debunked claim pops up in US politics.

SNOWFLAKE said:
View attachment 67571287
Click to expand...

Yep, I know that one for my rice and then add the curry and get it all mixed up and then pour it all onto my flat round plate, which is a large size because I haven't yet seen a working model of a bowl having been invented.
 



The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.
 
Juin said:
The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.
Click to expand...
No. Its demonstrably false on every single claim. They have not made one true statement in all its history.

We have known the earth isnt flat since ancient times.
 
Deuce said:
Yes.

Do you think the FAA somehow missed this completely? Because every single day at work I look at weather reports that include visibility. Do you think those reports constantly lie to me?
Click to expand...
Why? Was there something in that link that you could dispute or did not believe.
And that visibility has nothing to do with the illusions created by air density. Amazing that you are so unaware of the properties of the very medium you work in.
 
True. That is because you have a focal point. Stand on a flat plain without anything to focus on and the very density of the air will create a haze that obscures vision. The air does not block focus points such as a mountain more than 5 miles away.
Have you ever ben to the desert and seen a mirage? Same effect. Your vision is being blocked by the light interacting with the air to create a mirage.

The illusion of not being able to see more than 3 miles when looking out at the sea only works when there is no focal point. Clouds on the horizon are visible because you can focus on them. Even the image of a ship appearing in the distance mast first that allows us to assume their is a curvature on the horizon is an illusion. the effect of magnification by the atmosphere. It is the same effect of the moon looking larger when at the horizon than it does when strait above us. But on a clear day with nothing to focus on but the horizon then it will appear to be at eye level allowing us to assume that the earth must be shaped like a saucer with the lips curving up but the effect is simply an illusion created by the light traveling through the medium of air. You have seen how light can be bent when passing through water or glass? Air does the same thing.

You cannot disprove an actual fact about how the atmosphere tricks the brain into seeing illusions. All you can do is be unaware of the effects.
 
Juin said:
The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.
Click to expand...
Science is not about just observation. Observation alone cannot be called science. At best it is called being too lazy to do anything but look.

For it to be a valid hypothesis then you need a means to test that hypothesis. Without that all you have is someone making a claim they cannot substantiate. Again not science. not how science works.

So if you want to claim it a valid hypothesis then tell me the means by which you would test it and it has to be a way that can be duplicated by others if the test is to have any validity.
 
Juin said:
The flat earth proposition is a valid scientific hypothesis. It is True depending on the limitations of observations.
Click to expand...


soylentgreen said:
Science is not about just observation. Observation alone cannot be called science. At best it is called being too lazy to do anything but look.
Click to expand...


So you came about a round earth thesis without observation?



soylentgreen said:
For it to be a valid hypothesis then you need a means to test that hypothesis. Without that all you have is someone making a claim they cannot substantiate. Again not science. not how science works.
Click to expand...


The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on


soylentgreen said:
So if you want to claim it a valid hypothesis then tell me the means by which you would test it and it has to be a way that can be duplicated by others if the test is to have any validity.
Click to expand...


The flat earth hypothesis met all that
 
Lethargic Aptitude said:
A sphere (or thereabouts) is a three-dimensional object. The flat Earth stupidity claims that the Earth is a one-dimensional absurdity.
Click to expand...


Both are three dimensional


Lethargic Aptitude said:
But it makes sense that one-dimensional minds cannot grasp a 3d world. They ironically evolved from young-earthers to flat-earthers.
Click to expand...


What makes you think the flat earth hypothesis is one dimensional?
 
dmpi said:
Nobody really believes the world is flat. However people may just want to play devils advocate just to get a rise out of others. This is doable because in your personal observations the world does in fact look flat.
Click to expand...


There is nothing untoward about believing the earth is flat. It depends only on your capacity for observation. An isolated community today, say some tribe in the Amazon forest, say, that has never been in contact with outside civilisation; or same society millenia back; has to go by their observations; and that will yield a flat earth hypothesis
 
Yeah, I can "observe" the ocean falling off of the edge of a flat world
 
Juin said:
So you came about a round earth thesis without observation?
Click to expand...

No, I pointed out in earlier post that you need to do an experiment (also called testing an hypothesis) done by eratosthenes. to prove the world is round. Mere observation alone does not do that. Unless of course you want to get pernickety and point out your observing from space.
Juin said:
The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on
Click to expand...
No, it was just observation with no scientific methodology used at all. It did not stand the test because no testing was involved.
Juin said:
The flat earth hypothesis met all that
Click to expand...
So by what means was it tested? Remembering of course that just looking out the window and stating what you see is not a scientific test.
 
bomberfox said:
No. Its demonstrably false on every single claim. They have not made one true statement in all its history.

We have known the earth isnt flat since ancient times.
Click to expand...


The first Homo sapiens man emerged millions of years ago and just like that figured the earth is round?
 
soylentgreen said:
Why? Was there something in that link that you could dispute or did not believe.
And that visibility has nothing to do with the illusions created by air density. Amazing that you are so unaware of the properties of the very medium you work in.
Click to expand...
You said I could only see 3 miles at the surface. Aviation weather stations report surface visibility at 10 miles very regularly. (in truth, what they mean is 10 miles or greater, they just stop reporting beyond 10 miles)

Amazing that you are still this bad at trolling.

It's not the link I dispute. It's you. You don't understand what your own link says.
 
Juin said:
The first Homo sapiens man emerged millions of years ago and just like that figured the earth is round?
Click to expand...
Is there some reason you decided to just make up your own bullshit that nobody said?
 
soylentgreen said:
No, I pointed out in earlier post that you need to do an experiment (also called testing an hypothesis) done by eratosthenes. to prove the world is round.
Click to expand...


The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume


soylentgreen said:
Mere observation alone does not do that. Unless of course you want to get pernickety and point out your observing from space.
Click to expand...


If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough
 
Deuce said:
Is there some reason you decided to just make up your own bullshit that nobody said?
Click to expand...


I suppose you are the only one with brains here LOL
 
Juin said:
The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume





If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough
Click to expand...
And he did so with surprising accuracy, given the technology of the time. Pretty clever work.
 
lol. the air knows what I'm focusing on and selectively hides things!?
 
Juin said:
The flat earth proposition was testable, stood the test for centuries, if not millenia; until better observations proved it wrong. It was a valid scientific hypothesis in the observations it was based on
Click to expand...


soylentgreen said:
No, it was just observation with no scientific methodology used at all. It did not stand the test because no testing was involved.
Click to expand...


You mean it wasnt challenged. You challenge a hypothesis. A hypothesis is True until proven wrong.




Juin said:
The flat earth hypothesis met all that
Click to expand...


soylentgreen said:
So by what means was it tested? Remembering of course that just looking out the window and stating what you see is not a scientific test.
Click to expand...


Looking out of a window is a valid observation
 
I also said if there is no focal point. Given a flat plane such as looking out across the sea or a desert than atmospheric haze obscures your vision to around 3 miles. Your weather reports are assuming you can see things within that range such as mountains, buildings or clouds. all of which are focal points. Do remember that this started out as a conversation about looking across the ocean to see a ship on the horizon and not the normal views we have every day around airports.

Not trolling just making fun of your inability to understand.

Yet you fail to point out where I am wrong in that link. All you do is bring up situations that are not relevant.
 
Juin said:
The observation that the world is round was already arrived at before Eratosthenes. And he wasnt really challenging it, or proving it. He gave size to the volume
Click to expand...
The observation was not wrong., But observation alone is not science. Science is an exact method of observation. ie observe, hypothesise , test hypothesis , confirm / disprove observation. That is science.
Juin said:
If you can get to space and observe that the earth is round, that is good enough
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want to just take someones word for it. But that is belief not science.
 
Deuce said:
lol. the air knows what I'm focusing on and selectively hides things!?
Click to expand...
No, you really do not have a clue how this works.

What your observing does not change. What your brain interprets does change.

To some this is an image of an old woman, to others it is an image of a young woman. Is it the image that changes or as you seem to think, the image knows what you are focusing on. Or is it the way your brain interprets the image.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.