Flat Earth Theory Contradictorly Argued by Physics.

[Eodnhoj7]

Argument

1. Their is a movement arguing the earth is "flat". It is small and has existed in various grades for a long time.

2. Respectively the "round" earth movement shares a similiar paradigm.

3. The "round earth" movement is shared by physicists primarily, however physics is currently moving towards the claim all reality is 2 dimensional; thus necessitating the earth is flat and modern science is a projection of human understanding reflecting a dogmatic viewpoint similiar to the Catholic Church it condemns.

Thoughts?

[Frank N Stein]

What happened to that awesome explanation by Philosopher? I was going to congratulate him

[Eodnhoj7]

What happened to that awesome explanation by Philosopher? I was going to congratulate him

You will have to explain your point, I am not getting it.

[Logik]

Argument

1. Their is a movement arguing the earth is "flat". It is small and has existed in various grades for a long time.

2. Respectively the "round" earth movement shares a similiar paradigm.

3. The "round earth" movement is shared by physicists primarily, however physics is currently moving towards the claim all reality is 2 dimensional; thus necessitating the earth is flat and modern science is a projection of human understanding reflecting a dogmatic viewpoint similiar to the Catholic Church it condemns.

Thoughts?

Is spacetime curved or flat? The answer to this question (whatever it is) has absolutely no fucking implication on our day-to-day life/decision-making.

Humans will find any reason to discriminate against one another. Of all the pathetic reasons to discriminate on - I can't roll my eyes far enough when it comes to semantics.

You don't think/speak like me BAAAAAAAAD!

[Frank N Stein]

What happened to that awesome explanation by Philosopher? I was going to congratulate him

You will have to explain your point, I am not getting it.

Nothing to explain. Philosopher's post was here, and then it was gone. He explained why a 2D holographic universe doesn't mean a 'flat earth'.

[Eodnhoj7]

Argument

1. Their is a movement arguing the earth is "flat". It is small and has existed in various grades for a long time.

2. Respectively the "round" earth movement shares a similiar paradigm.

3. The "round earth" movement is shared by physicists primarily, however physics is currently moving towards the claim all reality is 2 dimensional; thus necessitating the earth is flat and modern science is a projection of human understanding reflecting a dogmatic viewpoint similiar to the Catholic Church it condemns.

Thoughts?

Is spacetime curved or flat? The answer to this question (whatever it is) has absolutely no fucking implication on our day-to-day life/decision-making.

Humans will find any reason to discriminate against one another. Of all the pathetic reasons to discriminate on - I can't roll my eyes far enough when it comes to semantics.

You don't think/speak like me BAAAAAAAAD!

Actually because of our concept of reality provides the framework for modeling our pragmatic nature through technological innovation...it does completely.

[Logik]

Nothing to explain. Philosopher's post was here, and then it was gone. He explained why a 2D holographic universe doesn't mean a 'flat earth'.

It does and it doesn't!

In mathematics you can transform equations from one form/paradigm into another.

Isomorphic mathematical formulas can have identical consequences/implications even though they have different form.

Because they are isomorphic their utility is identical. Even though their aesthetic/forms are vastly different

[Eodnhoj7]

What happened to that awesome explanation by Philosopher? I was going to congratulate him

You will have to explain your point, I am not getting it.

Nothing to explain. Philosopher's post was here, and then it was gone. He explained why a 2D holographic universe doesn't mean a 'flat earth'.

Well its gone, so I can't tear it apart can I ?

Actually 3 dimensionality can observe "depth" as merely a continual state of change in 2dimensional structures continually converging/diverging.

A 2 dimensional structure does not necessitate an absence of 3 dimensionality, but rather what we considering as "round" effectively being an everpresent state of "change".

I argue this in "Viewing all as Shallow" which observes a perceptual argument for a flat reality.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25478

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing to explain. Philosopher's post was here, and then it was gone. He explained why a 2D holographic universe doesn't mean a 'flat earth'.

It does and it doesn't!

In mathematics you can transform equations from one form/paradigm into another.

Isomorphic mathematical formulas can have identical consequences/implications even though they have different form.

Because they are isomorphic their utility is identical. Even though their aesthetic/forms are vastly different

True, we are left with "inversion" as a foundation phenomenon within all measurement.

[Logik]

Actually because of our concept of reality provides the framework for modeling our pragmatic nature through technological innovation...it does completely.

To the person designing/operating the GPS network - it totally makes a difference.
To the person designing the LIGO experiment - it totally makes a difference.
To the person designing the navigation systems for airplanes - it totally makes a difference.

To Joe Contrarian who has nothing better to do with his life - it's a reason to pick on others.

[Logik]

If I had nothing better to do with myself, I might just embark on a mission to derive euclidian equations which equivalent predictive utility as the current stuff we have.

And the flat-earthers will celebrate!

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually because of our concept of reality provides the framework for modeling our pragmatic nature through technological innovation...it does completely.

To the person designing/operating the GPS network - it totally makes a difference.
To the person designing the LIGO experiment - it totally makes a difference.
To the person designing the navigation systems for airplanes - it totally makes a difference.

To Joe Contrarian who has nothing better to do with his life - it's a reason to pick on others.

Actually it does, because physics has turned itself into a religion of technological tyranny. All the technology built upon its framework, as well as its "pragmatic utility" is just...well irrational.

[Logik]

Actually it does, because physics has turned itself into a religion of technological tyranny. All the technology built upon its framework, as well as its "pragmatic utility" is just...well irrational.

I have no such objections to technological advancement.

But I do object to conceptual/predictive models being deified as Truth and used as a tool for social ostracism.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually it does, because physics has turned itself into a religion of technological tyranny. All the technology built upon its framework, as well as its "pragmatic utility" is just...well irrational.

I have no such objections to technological advancement.

But I do object to conceptual/predictive models being deified as Truth and used as a tool for social ostracism.

The fact we are discussing this over a computer rather than face to face is social ostracism...that is all technology does: Ostracize and quantify people into categories. It dissolves the human condition and tears it into pieces.

[Logik]

The fact we are discussing this over a computer rather than face to face is social ostracism...

False dichotomy.

If it wasn't for computers/internet - do you think you and I would be having this conversation at all?

The face-to-face option has not been taken away from us.
Only an alternative (that didn't exist 50 years ago) has been added.