Well, I think you got me partly wrong but np.
I'm not trying to accuse you of swallowing the lies or something. I know you're a good mind. I'm just answering why, technically, I don't believe it counts as proof.
But just think about other planets, the magnetic field, day and night...
You can proof (nearly) everything on your own, it just will take some time (depending on the person).
They have other explanations for those things tho.
You could prove that the round model is viable and makes sense, but whether you've falsified their model is a different question. If they have some alternative explanation for why those things are there, then disproving them is more involved.
Their model can be difficult to disprove even if it's wrong. The good lies are the ones that pass the points of scrutiny. So it could be deliberately built to be difficult to disprove (or maybe impossible to disprove short of being on space ship).
I'm not trying to say you should believe their model or that you're wrong to feel confident in your own. But whether there's proof that they're wrong is a different question.
You could tell me that the moon is a hologram (that there's a colony of cheetahs living inside it, etc), and even if I find it far-fetched and don't include it in my outlook of the world or whatever, I don't actually have a way to prove that you're wrong.
However, I do understand you, I know what you mean and you are right, generally (of course there are many things, what we are taught, that are actually lies); but in this case your behavior seems quite overstated.
I don't know what's overstated, it's just a point of technicality that I'm not going to draw a line in the sand if I don't have any way to be sure.
I'm just giving it the benefit of how I would treat every other claim that somebody makes. Kyrie says the earth could be flat, I actually don't have any way to know he's wrong.
It's funny how in these situations being agnostic and having no real opinion, and saying things like "I don't claim to know it unless I have proof" can be seen as like an Xtreme position, when if it was any other topic it would be the temperate, measured, humble, obviously reasonable way to go about it.
Usually it would be the other way around lol, where claiming to be sure with no possibility of being wrong would be the overstated thing.
I just don't make a special carveout for shape of the planet, basically. Even if I generally assume round earth, I don't claim to know it for sure.
I'm more concerned with creating a world that would democratize things like space travel anyways. Building a mechanism that could reliably find the answer rather than try to skip to what the answer is. Until we can do that, I don't even think of it as something we should care about .. We survived millions of years without knowing, we can wait another 50 😃
I know bro, I know. I do not mean to be impolite either. ;D
I know that they have other explanations for certain things - some just do not make sense. Whatever.
Btw. do you know a lot about both theories? I am not sure if you do (no offense, just an assumption).
Again, I really do understand your point. Just do not be a dumb/blind sheep and believe everything you hear. I am definitely not such a person and you are neither. :D
I absolutely did not mean to be rude or anything like that. My apologies if it "felt a bit harsh".
Lol, seems legit.
Cheers!
I don't! I've vaguely listened to flat earth stuff once or twice as background while I fall asleep.
I don't know the specifics of how they claim it works, but I have like the macro overarching general picture of it.
I'm probably decently up to speed with the round earth model, lol. But I'm not giving Brian Greene a run for his money or anything.
Point with the hologram/cheetahs thing is just to say that something seeming far-fetched and not likely to be true is different than actually having proof that it's untrue.
So considering flat earth to be far-fetched is different than having specific proof that negates their specific claims.
no, not at all! You're a kind gentle soul.
oh, I just realized that where you said "I really do understand your point", I responded thinking you said "do not understand your point"
ahahah
Sorry to repeat it for no reason.
I will answer both your comments with this one.
Comment 1:
Ah, okay, now I understand it even better haha - however, I already wrote that I do understand your point of view and respectively share your opinion on not being part of the sheeple. ;D
Knowledge > blind faith
Lmao
Good good, just wanted to "play it safe". Haha, thx bro, you too!
Comment 2:
Alright haha, np, I was not sure how I should take it anyway. Now I know. ;D
Ya, I feel like too often people are quick to assume that they "know" things or "the science is clear", when what they really mean is other people say this.
(I do understand that in your case, the physics of it legit seem right to you.)
So my thing here is more a point of principle, of what counts as knowledge or proof. And for that reason I tend to be sympathetic with the people going against the grain, whether or not I agree with them or care much.
Even if flat earth is wildly wrong, it's probably a good exercise to remember that only a select few ever get the best tools and get to travel to the cosmos and if there was ever any motivation to do so, we could easily be misled about some of the smaller details.
So when information is guarded like that, I take everything with a grain of salt.
It's different when information is open. I.e., I feel really good trusting the experts who say "we need X improvement to the blockchain for this reason" or the dentist who says you need to do blah blah thing. But NASA... nah 🙂
Could not agree more with your statement(s) here.
Yes haha, NASA might not the most honest agency over the world, at least we do not know... like many other things... hah
Nahhhhsa
Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The GOAT got robbed tonite. Four future hall of famers and the officiating crew, and then it still took JR Smith not knowing what the score is and running the wrong way.
Robbed hard.