User Tag List

Results 1 to 4 of 4

  1. #1
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Just dumping this here: An argument for a flat earth.

    The first assumption is that time can be accurately modeled as linear or cyclical. Inherent in that assumption is that it is neither just linear nor cyclical...but both simultaneously. I symbolize it as 10 or 01. Whether you're perceiving time as cyclical or linear depends on your perspective...but with that realization comes the understanding that the essence of time, from a "universal" perspective, will neither be cyclical nor linear...but a combination of both. Let's call it "universal time".

    What got me on this path of questioning the nature of space was the way a lot of theories combine space and time as similar. That is, the properties of space and that of time tend to agree. Whether this is indeed the case, I don't know. But assuming that they do, then...

    Your perception of space can also be influenced by your perspective.

    There are two perspectives you can view space from...when you are in the system..and when you are out of it. The earth is a "space system"...and thus when you are in it you view it as something other than it's round nature. We'll call this "linear". And when you are out of it, you view it as round or "cyclical". So, in just the same way that time is 01/10, space is also 01/10.

    (I'm not talking about cosmic space, but rather "physical" or "immediate" space.)

    So, space can be thought of as both cyclical or linear....or rather the space system can be thought of as both flat or round.

    And I think if you extrapolate from evolution a bit, you can reasonably prove that the earth can be modeled accurately as flat...using biology as a basis.

    Just a thought.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Elisius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2w1 so/sx
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Except that the edges of a flat earth touch. Thus causing forcing us to theorize a higher dimension is at work (which it is) and therefore making us realize it is an oblong spheroid. Also, there is no evidence that time is either linear or cyclical, or what it would imply either way.
    And that's my response to the very small amount here I could actually understand.

    Don't do drugs, kids.
    A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

  3. #3
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisius View Post
    Also, there is no evidence that time is either linear or cyclical, or what it would imply either way.
    Someone should get on that...

    Science has been largely dependent on direct observation. In cases where observation isn't possible we've created models to best estimate what is going on. Assuming computers could accurately model the natural world, we could figure out the nature of concepts such as time. Time is the easiest example as I don't really think it's understood accurately...though I'm inclined to think it is natural rather than not.

    Then someone could produce evidence definitively exposing the true nature of time ie the nature of "universal time"...and concepts and theories related to time should be affected...ie space (i'm thinking biology and plate tectonics as well..). If the way we think of space is changed...then you could make arguments for a whole bunch of weird positions...backed up by computers...backed up by science.

    I guess my babbling was a poor attempt at assuming an accurate understanding of time and what that would mean for other theories related to it.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    The first assumption is that time can be accurately modeled as linear or cyclical. Inherent in that assumption is that it is neither just linear nor cyclical...but both simultaneously. I symbolize it as 10 or 01. Whether you're perceiving time as cyclical or linear depends on your perspective...but with that realization comes the understanding that the essence of time, from a "universal" perspective, will neither be cyclical nor linear...but a combination of both. Let's call it "universal time".

    What got me on this path of questioning the nature of space was the way a lot of theories combine space and time as similar. That is, the properties of space and that of time tend to agree. Whether this is indeed the case, I don't know. But assuming that they do, then...

    Your perception of space can also be influenced by your perspective.

    There are two perspectives you can view space from...when you are in the system..and when you are out of it. The earth is a "space system"...and thus when you are in it you view it as something other than it's round nature. We'll call this "linear". And when you are out of it, you view it as round or "cyclical". So, in just the same way that time is 01/10, space is also 01/10.

    (I'm not talking about cosmic space, but rather "physical" or "immediate" space.)

    So, space can be thought of as both cyclical or linear....or rather the space system can be thought of as both flat or round.

    And I think if you extrapolate from evolution a bit, you can reasonably prove that the earth can be modeled accurately as flat...using biology as a basis.

    Just a thought.
    If I understood you correctly, you are saying that things look different depending on what scale we are looking at it.

    The Earth's surface curves about 8 inches per mile. If we weren't very observant or contemplative, this may go lost on us. But we can judge from the horizon that perhaps there is something else going on.

    With the added evidence from eclipses, and now finally since as a human race, we have images from space, this is indisputable.

    I think this is somewhat relevant to this discussion too...

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

    We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
    As for time, it is interesting. Does it extend infinitely or not?

    Almost all natural and human processes have a cycle (the day, the month, the year, seasons, migration patterns, etc.)...does this extend to the universe too?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Maybe I'll just hang out here for a while.
    By Tyrinth in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 04:47 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Arguments for Empathy: Is Empathy An NF Thing?
    By tkae. in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-15-2011, 05:59 PM
  3. An Argument for Human Sentience and ZOMBIES!!!
    By JediVulcanisim in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 10:38 PM
  4. argument for me being an E
    By prplchknz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 01:37 PM
  5. [MBTItm] An argument for investing in intellectual infrastructure
    By Provoker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO