Music Banter - Flat Earth Uprising?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - Flat Earth Uprising? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/86596-flat-earth-uprising.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N (Post 1793555)

cuz that one is a cartoon. mine are not.

This disproves nothing. You can't just write off evidence because you don't like its medium. That's called being closeminded. Look at the evidence that threatens your precious paradigm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks (Post 1793552)

You can't make a claim, ask for rebuttal, dismiss millennia of evidence and logic, and then play the misunderstood martyr.

exhausting

martyr? ha. get over it man. i'm just tired and i wanna not sit at the computer for the whole evening. i assure you though, challenging the status quo is a tiring business. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1793558)

This disproves nothing. You can't just write off evidence because you don't like its medium. That's called being closeminded. Look at the evidence that threatens your precious paradigm.

so the cartoon is proof that the galaxy has a tail, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N (Post 1793560)

so the cartoon is proof that the galaxy has a tail, then?

It shows proof of it derived from other evidence. Using animation to portray this makes it neither wrong nor right and you just look indignant when you deny it.

and it's not my precious paradigm. i want it to eff right off, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N (Post 1793562)

and it's not my precious paradigm. i want it to eff right off, actually.

Then don't be so instantly dismissive of anything that challenges it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1793561)

It shows proof of it derived from other evidence. Using animation to portray this makes it neither wrong nor right and you just look indignant when you deny it.

but i'm not denying it. i'm saying it doesn't belong in this argument. if someone proves the earth is a ball in a way that crushes all the globe paradoxes, then i will take that video and roll with it. til then, it's simply not valid here. it's a cartoon based on what - if the earth is flat - is necessarily fictitious data. citing that data does nothing to prove the earth is a globe. the only way to prove the earth is not flat is to prove it's a globe (or getting the video i mentioned earlier, which shouldn't be even remotely as difficult as you seem to think it would be).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1793563)

Then don't be so instantly dismissive of anything that challenges it.

it seems instant because i've been thinking about things under this light (from atop the fence) for over two years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N (Post 1793553)

really though? so when nasa says they've found a planet in a neighbouring solar system which hold a planet possibly like earth, and they tell you they can tell it's a bit like earth because they've told you they can tell what gases are on its surface because of the way it wobbles or because of infrared this or that, you believe it's experimentation? or is it that you believe they are funded enough that this must be what they're doing with their time? or is it possible you believe they are even capable of that for no other reason than that you were told they do, and that you've been provided images on a consistent basis throughout the entirety of your formative years?

I believe space science is a legitimate field of study and we have the intelligence and technology to hypothesize/theorize things that we'd eventually like to test.

I think if scientists say they have found the kind of planet you describe, they probably have good reason for believing it to be true, based on their current understanding. Unlike you, science is flexible, and when information/technology changes or improves the science gets updated. Based on our current understanding of Earth, you have no grounds to claim flat earth based on science because all the science supports a globe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P A N (Post 1793496)

they're not really that different. a gaseous body travelling through space should have a tail. there's sh*t coming out of it all the time. what is so different about that compared to a comet?

A comet's tail isn't created by motion and doesn't necessarily trail behind it. A comet's tail is created by solar radiation bombarding the comet. Because of this, the tail always points away from the sun. This means that the tail would be behind the comet as it approaches the sun, next to the comet as it passes by the sun, and in front of the comet as it's moving away from the sun. The reason the sun doesn't have a tail is because there's no massive object millions of times its size nearby blasting radiation at it.

[Edit] Here's a diagram:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...il_diagram.jpg