Flat earth vs round earth
slimboyfat, thats a good point. I think at least most folks here have had to at some point take a look at some things that they just knew were true and reexamine them. Then they started to realize that there is a different perspective, that the GB doesn't necessarily have their best interests in mind and that there's more to the story than what they've been led to believe by those in charge, the many thousands in charge who may or may not believe the truth of their own words as they lead the "sheep" to the slaughter. The fact that we've made it to this forum likely means that thankfully, we were able to see things from a different perspective, even if it took many years and much research.
Even then, some post-JW folk believe in the bible, and some dont, so even in re-examining their own perspective, we did not all come to the same conclusions in the end, but at least we got out (even if only mentally for some) from under the thumb of the bORG.
sfb: Things appear differently from different perspectives. How you describe something depends on how you look at it and the reason for the description. The trouble is we simply cannot see things from a perspective that is not our own. For some people this inability to see from other perspectives leads them to conclude that other perspectives in some sense are not real or that they are inferior in some essential respecf.
When you apply the concepts of a postmodernist theoretical positioning to science, the end result is science fiction
Don't confuse fiction with fact by assuming that postmodernism can be applied with impunity to the scientific process
MrRoboto: You cant personally prove that the sun is actually what causes the moon's illumination
Sure you can. Just look up in the sky anytime both the Sun and Moon are visible.
That bright object that you can’t look at directly because it is blindingly bright, that’s the Sun. It is sunlight that is illuminating everything you see including the Moon.
It depends on how you draw lines in reality, like I said here:
JP1692 - making assumptions is not the way to prove things. If you base your belief on your belief, it will be self-reinforcing. i.e. "It must be god's organization because the governing body is appointed by god"
How many circles do you want to run around mentally?
MrRoboto: You are one confused person.
It’s clearly pointless trying to reason with you. Have a nice life!
SBF: It depends on how you draw lines in reality
Who are you responding to and what is the “it” to which you refer?
We can see the Earth is round from space; unless there is a huge conspiracy...
We can see the Sun light illuminating the surface of various things in the Solar System and see the Sun not illuminating the opposite side of these same things (we can also measure the energy going into something and then radiating outwards again to gauge where the energy is coming from; that's outside this discussion though!).
We don't have to do the experiments ourselves because we have a class of people to do that work for us - scientists. We trust what they say because there is not world wide conspiracy to mislead. Unless there is, of course...
I don't need to prove that the person I am talking to every morning is actually my wife and not a construct of____ (insert any random nonsense idea here). I accept that she is my wife because not to do so is stupid.
pointless indeed. can someone close this thread?
is that a thing here?
here the problem is interpretation of data because with a flat plane of sufficient size, you would not be able to see the entire sky and would see different parts of it depending on where you are.
With respect, I don't think the author understands the problem.
The constellations in the sky rotate as the night progresses. Regardless of whether you believe this is caused by the sky rotating or the earth rotating, there is an axis of rotation relative to the observer on earth.
If the earth were flat, the axis of rotation at any one point on earth would be coplaner with the axis of rotation at every other point on earth. In other words, the imaginary lines would not intersect regardless of how far we projected them inwards.
However, if the earth were a sphere, two or more axis of rotation would intersect at a central point when projected inwards.
We have known for a very long time that the latter scenario is the correct one.
The exact same phenomenon occurs when we measure the angle between apparent noon and true noon at two or more locations. Eratosthenes used that principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC, which was a very, very time ago.
If this subject is of interest, you might enjoy the book, Longitude.
Mariners struggled for years to come up with an accurate way to measure longitude, because it's a helluva lot harder thing to do on a sphere than it would be on a flat plane.
Before GPN, mariners at sea calculated longitude using a clock and a sextant, which are more sophisticated instruments than Eratosthenes had at his disposal, but do basically the same thing.