ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
₿en Wehrman31d ago
💬 10 replies

Replies (10)

Eede3d9…79538231d ago
At tbis point I am not sure where you want to get to. Yes, the holocaust didn't happen as prpagandised Yes, the moon landing, 9/11, Covid, Climate, ... We might very well live in a situation. But if you make strong claims you want scientific setups to verify or falsify your perspective. So far the scientist in me has not seen any measurable proof. You should start with defining different experiments. For example measure the normal time span for sunset. What would you expect from sun becoming fully visible? Then jump in a plane head directly into the sunrise and do the measurement again. What would you expect for different models (globe vs flat). Climb a mountain. Do line of sight calculation, distract atmospheric effects. Or again board a flight. Bring a good camera make photos of the horizon, take parallax effect of camera into account and observw/measure the curviture. I don't like that people jump to every conspiracy theory today, especially since we know that some theories are explicitly spread to distract from real ones. That's part of theit strategy. Also take into account that globe perspective was once a conspiracy theory. So which is it now? I do not want you to throw your beliefs out the window. I want you to prove them like a real scientist. For example the physics teacher that came up with a clever idea to prove free fall speeds (=controlled demolition) on 9/11. He really opened the eyes for millions of people.
0000 sats
Hanshan31d ago
the sun goes down and comes up, it doesn't disappear off into the distance and then get closer from someplace far away ships also disappear over the horizon, bottom first and mast last. Plenty of people have measured the curvature on land and sea. the same constellations in the S hemisphere are inverted. These are basic observations that are not explained by a flat-earth model, but are obvious on a globe. The force that holds everything onto the globe has been a problem of natural philosophers for thousands of years. Some of the first actual measurements are only happening in the last decade. https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/record-br…
000
Hanshan30d ago
0000 sats
Kevin Alfred Strom30d ago
The real issue is the lies of the church and the so-called Bible. Makes me think of Magellan, who was quoted by the brilliant Colonel Ingersoll as saying, "The church says the Earth is flat, but I have seen the shadow of the Earth upon the Moon, and I have more faith in the shadow than in the church."
0000 sats
Hanshan30d ago
It is true that all things are Mind. It is ALSO true that there is a directly-observable physical reality that functions along certain parameters. And these two statements are not contradictory.
0000 sats
0 sats
lkraider31d ago
I have become at peace with both models. They function at different levels of reality, globe Earth is sustainable as a breakdown low level physics model, while flat Earth is intrinsically more powerful as metaphysics. Once you understand metaphysics is above and science is below, they each fall into place. The hard part is building bridges between them, because if you discuss metaphysical claims on low level reality it becomes incompatible, same for trying to use low level reality to explain metaphysical patterns, they don’t.
0000 sats
Eede3d9…79538231d ago
It's not hard. Even creationism makes sense in a simulation. It's the loading time of the software that brings you the age of empires on this planet. Just use a bigger framework and you can combine otherwise exclusive perspectives.
0000 sats
lkraider30d ago
Simulation theory is just ancient Gnosticism repackaged with a technological metaphor, nothing metaphysically new about it.
0000 sats
Hanshan30d ago
Simulation theory kinda gets on my tit like, even if it was, how would you know? isn't it unknowable by definition? sounds like wanking to me.
0000 sats
Hanshan31d ago
You can just say "it's my faith" and there's no problem with that. It's when people argue that it explains physical, observational data that there's a problem.
0000 sats