Is Earth round or flat ?

[Stiddle Mump]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The absence of direct flights from Southern Chile to South Africa is driven by economic viability and operational logistics rather than any geographic or physical barrier. Airlines opt for routes that maximise efficiency and passenger numbers, and in this case, the indirect routes via hubs better serve those needs.

 

What about the big fence built by ancient civilisation of giants that used the cookie cutter to shape the flat disk of earth ?

 

Billion ???

Some surveys in the United States have indicated that roughly 2% of Americans might believe the Earth is flat.

 

While the flat Earth belief exists, its often amplified by online communities and remains a fringe view.

 

But... Assuming there are as many fruit-cakes in the rest of the world as there are in the USA... 

 

The 2% of the population believing in a flat-earth would be 160.5 Million People...   Thats still a lot of complete loons !!!

Don't agree with your stats Richard. I'm firmly in the middle section; the 2 billion that are unsure. I see both sides of the discussion.

 

I was a spherical earther, until Fatima persuaded me to look at the flat earth theory. By far the majority still believe the earth is spherical. But is that number diminishing?

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

 

So not much of a problem then as the dangerous fruit cakes of the world are the ones who believe in religion, they are the real threat. 😀

 

No disagreement from me there....   But at least for the stupid that forms some form of 'moral police force' to prevent them doing really stupid stuff.....  but those 'moral police forces' have become so powerful they've lost their morality and and you highlight, are and always have been real threat.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I was a spherical earther, until Fatima persuaded me to look at the flat earth theory. By far the majority still believe the earth is spherical. But is that number diminishing?

 

I got into this 'slightly' a few pages back... (around page 11 I think)...     but its just too exhausting to try and argue something so ridiculous on an intellectual level...   

.... not because I can't find a sound counter argument to every flat earth claim and dash of claimed flat earth evidence....

...  but because its just so tiring reading the silliness with a serious mind and countering each individual argument over and over again, while people quote those I consider idiots who manage to frame well sounding but fundamentally flawed argument.

 

Its a rabbit hole which simply is not worth delving down because it offers no intelligent or informative value other than the recognition that 'some' people can sound perfectly rational yet are absolutely undeniably bonkers !!!

 

 

 

 

 

[JamesPhuket10]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No disagreement from me there....   But at least for the stupid that forms some form of 'moral police force' to prevent them doing really stupid stuff.....  but those 'moral police forces' have become so powerful they've lost their morality and and you highlight, are and always have been real threat.

 

What is scary is that American politicians during many speeches say "God save America", now that is really scary as they have nukes. 

That has never been said in the UK, in fact only a small percentage of people are actively religious there, but that is growing though with immigration, and we have nukes too. 

[Stiddle Mump]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I got into this 'slightly' a few pages back... (around page 11 I think)...     but its just too exhausting to try and argue something so ridiculous on an intellectual level...   

.... not because I can't find a sound counter argument to every flat earth claim and dash of claimed flat earth evidence....

...  but because its just so tiring reading the silliness with a serious mind and countering each individual argument over and over again, while people quote those I consider idiots who manage to frame well sounding but fundamentally flawed argument.

 

Its a rabbit hole which simply is not worth delving down because it offers no intelligent or informative value other than the recognition that 'some' people can sound perfectly rational yet are absolutely undeniably bonkers !!!

You are bang on the money about it being a rabbit hole Richard.

 

One could argue the toss for 100 pages and not convince anyone of your point of view. Or have you mind changed by opposing arguments.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You are bang on the money about it being a rabbit hole Richard.

 

One could argue the toss for 100 pages and not convince anyone of your point of view. Or have you mind changed by opposing arguments.

 

 

There exists no rigorous scientific study has provided evidence that challenges the well established understanding that the Earth is an oblate spheroid....  none whatsoever.

 

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

There exists no rigorous scientific study has provided evidence that challenges the well established understanding that the Earth is an oblate spheroid....  none whatsoever.

 

So you say Richard.

 

Fatima said differently. She came at it from a different viewpoint. Told me to do some investigating. Check on flight distances she said. I did.  Now I'm 50-50.

 

Did you know Richard, that a plane can't fly from the equator going north, over the pole, back to the equator the other side, and then carry on south over the south pole and back where it started? No one can explain that.

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

So you say Richard.

 

Fatima said differently. She came at it from a different viewpoint. Told me to do some investigating. Check on flight distances she said. I did.  Now I'm 50-50.

 

Did you know Richard, that a plane can't fly from the equator going north, over the pole, back to the equator the other side, and then carry on south over the south pole and back where it started? No one can explain that.

 

Of course it can - just because something is not carried out, i.e. for commercial reasons, does not mean that it 'cannot' be carried out.

 

It is perfectly possible for an aircraft to fly north from the equator over the North Pole, then returns to the equator on the opposite side, and continues south over the South Pole and forms a closed loop at the staring point.

i.e. an aircraft follows follows this geodesic path, it will eventually return to its starting point.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of a sphere, where the shortest path between any two points (the great circle route) naturally loops back if extended far enough.

 

It is also a reality that many long-haul flights already use polar routes to minimise distance, confirming that such paths are not only theoretically possible but are routinely flown.

 

 

 

Thus: While it’s theoretically possible to design a flight path that loops over both poles and returns to its starting point, several practical challenges explain why such a route is not typically used:

 

Operational Efficiency:
Airlines plan routes to minimise fuel consumption and flight time. Most commercial flights follow the most direct paths between origin and destination (i.e. major cities) rather than an extended circumnavigation.

 

Harsh Weather Conditions:
Polar regions often experience extreme cold, icing, and rapidly changing weather, which can complicate flight operations and safety.

 

Navigational and Communication Challenges:
Near the poles, magnetic compasses become unreliable and communication systems can face limitations, requiring advanced navigation technology that is less efficient over such vast, remote areas.

 

Limited Emergency Options:
With few emergency landing sites available in polar regions, pilots face increased risks if they need to divert in an emergency.

 

Geopolitical and Airspace Restrictions:
Overflights of polar areas can be subject to strict regulations and require special permissions, making them less attractive for regular commercial operations.

 

 

While modern technology has made polar routes feasible,  challenges mean that flights over the South Pole are usually reserved for special missions, research, or specific charter operations rather than routine commercial travel.

 

Thus, polar circumnavigation is geometrically sound, practical concerns such as efficiency, safety, regulatory constraints and cost make it an uncommon choice for commercial aviation and a pointless exercise from the point of view of science just to contradict a silly flat earther's idea.

 

 

Again - as mentioned earlier (and on previous pages) its a bit ridiculous treating such claims seriously and taking the time it takes to respond properly....   

 

As Fatima said to you... do some investigating... but do so in a much much better manner than the simplistic dumbed down manner which ignores common sense... 

[black tabby12345]

If the world is flat, the range of radar detection won't be limited to the horizon.

[Stiddle Mump]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As Fatima said to you... do some investigating.

Fatima was much traveled in the Southern Hemisphere. Or outer edges if you consider the earth not to be spherical.

 

She said the flight paths were far longer than they should be, and went in strange directions. And she should know.

[black tabby12345]

Regarding that belief(The World is Flat).

That is the perception of medieval age Europeans.

While some country in the world is said to have 6 millions of people supporting  that idea.

 

Is this their Current World Map?

 

PTOLEMAIC WORLD MAP, 1493. /nPtolemaic world map, including depictions of Noah's sons, Japhet, Shem and Ham, progenitors of the human race in Judeo-Christian tradition. Woodcut from the 'Nuremberg Chronicle,' 1493 Stock Photo - Alamy

 

[black tabby12345]

It was 350BC when Aristotle, a Greek philosopher established the theory that the world is sphere.

 

 

And his idea was physically proved  in the 16th century, by Ferdinand Magellan (Spanish explorer), through his around the world voyage.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Fatima was much traveled in the Southern Hemisphere. Or outer edges if you consider the earth not to be spherical.

 

She said the flight paths were far longer than they should be, and went in strange directions. And she should know.

 

I don't know who this Fatima is... but, given your comments, your reverence for her/him by far outweigh any validity or scientific depths to the comments you repeat - you've been influenced by a charlatan... 

 

Engaging in a debate with a flat earther often feels like arguing with an immovable object - a conversation doomed from the start because it rests on a foundation of demonstrably false assumptions.

 

Every attempt to introduce evidence or logical reasoning is met with an unwavering commitment to an idea that contradicts centuries of scientific discovery, leaving the dialogue in a perpetual loop of circular arguments.

 

The frustration comes from realising that any rational point made is either twisted or dismissed outright. It's not so much a battle of ideas as it is a display of dogged obstinacy, where reason is subordinated to a commitment to a belief that has long been debunked.

 

This commitment to what can only be described as utter ignorance transforms what could be a constructive discussion into an exercise in futility.

 

Ultimately, the experience underscores how entrenched beliefs, no matter how absurd, can become impenetrable when the desire to hold onto them overrides the willingness to engage with factual evidence.

 

The pointlessness of arguing with someone so deeply invested in a flat earth theory is a reminder that not every conversation is meant to be a meeting of minds, sometimes it’s just an exasperating clash between reason and a refusal to acknowledge it.

 

Your repeated use of examples so readily debunked such as flight paths are so incredibly easy to explain... its all too ridiculous to take seriously.

 

[Stiddle Mump]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

I don't know who this Fatima is... but, given your comments, your reverence for her/him by far outweigh any validity or scientific depths to the comments you repeat - you've been influenced by a charlatan.

I met Fatima at medical school in East London. From Africa. Very intelligent. Lovely she was. No way a charlatan. Embraced emotional love.

 

As I said Richard; I'm 50/50. That's not saying that the earth is 50% flat and 50% spherical. That seems a bit daft. No!! Take a water melon. Cut it right across the middle, and stand one half on its curvy side. The flat top is mostly red with a white edge. The red (fleshy) bit of the fruit is what we know as the earth's surface, The white edge is the ice. I've not yet figured out where the North Pole is. I'll leave that to the 100% flat-earther to explain.

 

I'm not all in on the theory, but it does explain quite a lot.

 

[Harrisfan]

On 12/23/2024 at 3:57 PM, dinsdale said:

How about does god exist? Very similar in that there is no evidence to support either. A flat earth or the existence of god/gods. Absolutely ZERO evidence based on science.

Flat sun too?

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I've not yet figured out where the North Pole is.

 

Its ok - no need to worry yourself....  proven science has that in hand....  (and its likely at some point you've flown over it or very close to it).

 

Now... take a look at Palaeomagnetism of the earth. 

 

Magnetic Inclination & Latitude: Magnetic minerals align differently depending on latitude: horizontal at the equator, steeper towards the poles. This pattern fits a curved Earth.

 

Apparent Polar Wander: Different continents show unique magnetic pole shifts, proving they moved on a spherical surface.

 

Geomagnetic Reversals: Symmetrical magnetic stripes on the ocean floor confirm seafloor spreading, only possible on a sphere (i.e. mid-atlantic ridge)

 

Palaeolatitudes: Rock magnetism matches predicted ancient land positions, supporting plate tectonics.

 

These patterns only make sense if Earth is round, not flat.

 

I suggest 'Fatima' would be better off had she embraced science a little more than 'emotional love' - I hope she's not a practicing Doctor or surgeon... 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Its ok - no need to worry yourself....  proven science has that in hand....  (and its likely at some point you've flown over it or very close to it).

 

Now... take a look at Palaeomagnetism of the earth. 

 

Magnetic Inclination & Latitude: Magnetic minerals align differently depending on latitude: horizontal at the equator, steeper towards the poles. This pattern fits a curved Earth.

 

Apparent Polar Wander: Different continents show unique magnetic pole shifts, proving they moved on a spherical surface.

 

Geomagnetic Reversals: Symmetrical magnetic stripes on the ocean floor confirm seafloor spreading, only possible on a sphere (i.e. mid-atlantic ridge)

 

Palaeolatitudes: Rock magnetism matches predicted ancient land positions, supporting plate tectonics.

 

These patterns only make sense if Earth is round, not flat.

 

I suggest 'Fatima' would be better off had she embraced science a little more than 'emotional love' - I hope she's not a practicing Doctor or surgeon... 

 

I'm coming round to your way of reasoning Richard. 60 - 40 to a spherical earth now. Very interesting points you speak of. But I must emphasise; only the top is flat in the flat theory. The underside might be all jaggerdy.

 

Fatima is a Doctor in Banjul now. If she is not retired.

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The underside might be all jaggerdy.

 

What are your thoughts... could this Jaggerdy underside be composed of an assortment of big ‘energy crystals’ sending their thoughts and prayers our way ?

 

With a jagged underside to this vast, flat disk we inhabit—how substantial is its thickness?

 

Does it rotate like a smoothly spinning plate, or more erratically, like a coin set into motion? Or is its movement something in between?

 

Is its thickness uniform throughout, or does it taper toward the edges, perhaps growing denser at the centre?

 

And if mass attracts mass, how does this distribution affect gravity across the 'flat disk we call earth' ?

 

If the disk is not particularly thick, what holds us to its surface? Are we now also rejecting the very force of gravity itself?

 

[Stiddle Mump]

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What are your thoughts... could this Jaggerdy underside be composed of an assortment of big ‘energy crystals’ sending their thoughts and prayers our way ?

 

With a jagged underside to this vast, flat disk we inhabit—how substantial is its thickness?

 

Does it rotate like a smoothly spinning plate, or more erratically, like a coin set into motion? Or is its movement something in between?

 

Is its thickness uniform throughout, or does it taper toward the edges, perhaps growing denser at the centre?

 

And if mass attracts mass, how does this distribution affect gravity across the 'flat disk we call earth' ?

 

If the disk is not particularly thick, what holds us to its surface? Are we now also rejecting the very force of gravity itself?

 

Flat earthers don't see gravity as realistic. If you throw a ball bearing in the air it will come down cause it is heavier that the air it displaces. They put the emphasis on the weight of the object, and its medium, rather than gravity; that they don't believe in.

 

Flat earthers say the earth turns rather than rotates. Where we live is always on top.

 

The earth is believed to be 20 million metres thick in the middle.

[Purdey]

"Do your own research" doesn't work unless you can fly.

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Flat earthers don't see gravity as realistic. If you throw a ball bearing in the air it will come down cause it is heavier that the air. They put the emphasis on the weight of the object, and its medium, rather than gravity; that they don't believe in.

 

The Flat Earth claim that objects fall due to weight and density rather than gravity is flawed at an extremely fundamental level because weight itself is a result of gravity.

 

If objects fell solely due to being "heavier than air," they wouldn't fall in a vacuum, yet experiments these experiments can be carried out in the home... and any vaccum chamber... 

Much like dropping objects on the Moon, proves.

 

Moreover, buoyancy, which Flat Earthers have reference if they are considering one medium is 'heavier than another' (i.e. a ball bearing heavier than air) also depends on gravity; without it, there would be no upward force to counteract weight.

 

The Cavendish experiment confirms that mass attracts mass, and planetary motion aligns with Newtonian physics and general relativity, both of which accurately describe gravity’s effects. Ultimately, gravity is a measurable, well-supported force, not just a byproduct of density.

 

Thus: It doesn't really matter where a 'flat earther' places their emphasis when the premise is flawed in the extreme.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Flat earthers say the earth turns rather than rotates. Where we live is always on top.

 

Won't those on the towards the edges 'spin off ?'  and everyone else get dizzy ?

 

Wouldn't the 'water drain' or move towards the edges ? the centre would be a desert.

 

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The earth is believed to be 20 million metres thick in the middle.

 

Meaning that its approximately 7260 km thicker than the earth actually is in diameter ?

 

Would that not mean its a cylinder rather than a disk  ????

[Stiddle Mump]

22 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The Flat Earth claim that objects fall due to weight and density rather than gravity is flawed at an extremely fundamental level because weight itself is a result of gravity.

 

If objects fell solely due to being "heavier than air," they wouldn't fall in a vacuum, yet experiments these experiments can be carried out in the home... and any vaccum chamber... 

Much like dropping objects on the Moon, proves.

 

Moreover, buoyancy, which Flat Earthers have reference if they are considering one medium is 'heavier than another' (i.e. a ball bearing heavier than air) also depends on gravity; without it, there would be no upward force to counteract weight.

 

The Cavendish experiment confirms that mass attracts mass, and planetary motion aligns with Newtonian physics and general relativity, both of which accurately describe gravity’s effects. Ultimately, gravity is a measurable, well-supported force, not just a byproduct of density.

 

Thus: It doesn't really matter where a 'flat earther' places their emphasis when the premise is flawed in the extreme.

 

 

 

Won't those on the towards the edges 'spin off ?'  and everyone else get dizzy ?

 

Wouldn't the 'water drain' or move towards the edges ? the centre would be a desert.

 

 

Meaning that its approximately 7260 km thicker than the earth actually is in diameter ?

 

Would that not mean its a cylinder rather than a disk  ????

Not a disk. No! A hemisphere, but flatter,with a jaggerdy underside.

 

I was listening to a flat earther the other day, and he reckons the earth is about 40k km across. And at its middle about 20k km deep. so more like a section of a watermelon. But jaggerdy; not smooth.

 

As I say Richard; I'm not sure where the North Pole fits in to the flat earther's model. For me; this is a big weakness in their argument.

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

Not a disk. No! A hemisphere, but flatter,with a jaggerdy underside.

 

Why is no one living on this 'jaggerdy underside' too ???...  do we only 'stick to the top' ?

 

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

I was listening to a flat earther the other day, and he reckons the earth is about 40k km across. And at its middle about 20k km deep. so more like a section of a watermelon. But jaggerdy; not smooth.

 

As an oblate spheroid, the Earth has slightly different measurements for its equatorial and polar diameters due to its bulging at the equator. 

The Equatorial diameter: 12,756 km

the Polar diameter: 12,714 km

 

This has been proven beyond doubt with combination of geodesy, astronomy, gravity studies, and satellite measurements.

 

 

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

As I say Richard; I'm not sure where the North Pole fits in to the flat earther's model. For me; this is a big weakness in their argument.

 

The big weakness in the flat earthers model is actually the flat earthers model - nothing sensibly accurately or scientifically fits into it - concessions have to be made at every step, such that science as we know it has to get thrown out of the window for any of the model (and I hesitate to call it that) to be remotely viable. 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

On 2/25/2025 at 5:28 AM, richard_smith237 said:

The pointlessness of arguing with someone so deeply invested in a flat earth theory is a reminder that not every conversation is meant to be a meeting of minds, sometimes it’s just an exasperating clash between reason and a refusal to acknowledge it.

 

I could take that statement and replace "a flat earth theory" by "the heliocentric model". It's a pretty valid assessment, there's no denying that.

 

Beliefs are extremely hard to sway. Though I have one distinct advantage over you, IMO, in that I have already demonstrated that I can revise my beliefs, as I spent the first 40 years of my life believing the Earth was round (I am now in my mid-40s). I am open to revising my Flat Earth belief if I am shown valid evidence that I am wrong.

 

The heliocentric model is rife with flaws, but to acknowledge it, you would need to first acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong (and that includes all the principles and constructs based on "scientific advancement" which you consider incontrovertible). I really think this is the core issue..

[TedG]

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I could take that statement and replace "a flat earth theory" by "the heliocentric model". It's a pretty valid assessment, there's no denying that.

 

Beliefs are extremely hard to sway. Though I have one distinct advantage over you, IMO, in that I have already demonstrated that I can revise my beliefs, as I spent the first 40 years of my life believing the Earth was round (I am now in my mid-40s). I am open to revising my Flat Earth belief if I am shown valid evidence that I am wrong.

 

The heliocentric model is rife with flaws, but to acknowledge it, you would need to first acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong (and that includes all the principles and constructs based on "scientific advancement" which you consider incontrovertible). I really think this is the core issue..

 

Do you think the moon is made of cheese? 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, TedG said:

Do you think the moon is made of cheese? 

 

I'm sure with his approach to science he'd insist on having to acknowledge the possibility that it is....   

 

The good old 'Appeal to Possibility' ...  the favourite refuge of those who think that just because something 'could ' happen in some vague, hand-wavy, "well, you never know!" kind of way, we’re all supposed to take it seriously. Never mind that science and logic have already kicked it to the curb; apparently, if you can imagine it, that’s good enough.

 

Then these posters go and double down on the nonsense with the 'Burden of Possibility'.... the utterly daft idea that science has to entertain every ridiculous claim just because someone declared it "possible." As if reality has to bend over backwards to accommodate every wild theory, no matter how much it contradicts what we actually know. Because, obviously, if we don’t treat mermaids and time-travelling lizards with the same weight as physics and chemistry, we’re just being close-minded.

 

Flipping from a well-supported scientific stance to utter nonsense is not the mark of an open mind and indication some form of intellectual flexibility, its more a swan dive into stupidity than anything else....

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm sure with his approach to science he'd insist on having to acknowledge the possibility that it is....   

 

The good old 'Appeal to Possibility' ...  the favourite refuge of those who think that just because something 'could ' happen in some vague, hand-wavy, "well, you never know!" kind of way, we’re all supposed to take it seriously. Never mind that science and logic have already kicked it to the curb; apparently, if you can imagine it, that’s good enough.

 

Then these posters go and double down on the nonsense with the 'Burden of Possibility'.... the utterly daft idea that science has to entertain every ridiculous claim just because someone declared it "possible." As if reality has to bend over backwards to accommodate every wild theory, no matter how much it contradicts what we actually know. Because, obviously, if we don’t treat mermaids and time-travelling lizards with the same weight as physics and chemistry, we’re just being close-minded.

 

Flipping from a well-supported scientific stance to utter nonsense is not the mark of an open mind and indication some form of intellectual flexibility, its more a swan dive into stupidity than anything else....

 

 

 

 

I will post three quotes in response to the above sophism. They are particularly interesting when read through the lens explained in Lincoln Barnett's book The Universe and Dr. Einstein, which I already mentioned earlier in this thread and which details how modern “science” interprets data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts to explain and “save” the observable phenomena, i.e. observational data is twisted to fit the desired models.

 

The people quoted below are far more relevant than you and I on the matter, yet I anticipate that you will dismiss those quotes, simply because your belief in heliocentrism precludes you from going there.

 

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
– George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

 

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

 

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – page 39 – 2010

[JamesPhuket10]

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm sure with his approach to science he'd insist on having to acknowledge the possibility that it is....   

 

The good old 'Appeal to Possibility' ...  the favourite refuge of those who think that just because something 'could ' happen in some vague, hand-wavy, "well, you never know!" kind of way, we’re all supposed to take it seriously. Never mind that science and logic have already kicked it to the curb; apparently, if you can imagine it, that’s good enough.

 

Then these posters go and double down on the nonsense with the 'Burden of Possibility'.... the utterly daft idea that science has to entertain every ridiculous claim just because someone declared it "possible." As if reality has to bend over backwards to accommodate every wild theory, no matter how much it contradicts what we actually know. Because, obviously, if we don’t treat mermaids and time-travelling lizards with the same weight as physics and chemistry, we’re just being close-minded.

 

Flipping from a well-supported scientific stance to utter nonsense is not the mark of an open mind and indication some form of intellectual flexibility, its more a swan dive into stupidity than anything else....

 

 

 

 

My reply when I am told something is possible but in all practical terms it is not, I say "Yes it is possible but highly improbable".