19 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

CTs are, in fact, often factually based and supported by evidence, but these facts and evidence are deemed 'not credible' from the onset, which raises the question of who decides what is credible or not… The AI engines are fed data – if the bulk of said data leans in one direction rather than another, this will reflected in the engine's diction on an issue, usually in a categorical and authoritative tone ('this is the way it is' as opposed to 'most people say it is that way'). The results are not based on rational or objective analysis of information, but simply on what is the prevailing sentiment. It certainly does not prove anything to produce and AI-generated opinion, it does not strengthen an argument and it is not an objective arbiter of truth.

People sometimes need to be reminded of that as they will tend to put forward an AI-generated statement as if it were 'case closed' on a contentious issue.

CT's RARELY are factually based. Supported by evidence .... the rarest of the rare.

Are there any scientific tests showing the 'ice wall' around Antarctica? NO! Lots of erroneous 'science' and pure speculation but nothing that fits with physics, mathematics and actual verified observations.

Are there verified tests that show that Starlink of GPS satellites DO NOT orbit the Earth and in fact are held up by helium balloons.... NO! Has anyone tested a radio link to a specific satellite with triangulation and showed that it moves slow enough to NOT be in orbit? LOL

Just a dung heap of speculation is all you got.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rogan (I'm not really part of the 'social media' generation, I'm 45 years old and more of a book reader than anything else), but I think he is part of an array of 'influencers' who encourage their audience to question things and be more independent-minded, which (whatever you think of it) constitutes a radical break from the previous generation, who would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.

To me, this is a positive development, and therefore I have a favourable opinion about Rogan (which does not mean I necessarily agree with everything he says)

That you fancy yourself independent minded for believing the world is flat, and that you've made some "...radical break from the previous generation..." who you believe "...would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.", when you are not able to do simple arithmetic and formulate simple arguments is amusing, albeit a bit sad.

On 12/29/2024 at 5:59 PM, rattlesnake said:

Also, the post-Reformation historical context, which is essential to understand that the switch to heliocentrism was decided and implemented for political and ideological reasons, has consistently been laughed at and ignored,

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That you fancy yourself independent minded for believing the world is flat, and that you've made some "...radical break from the previous generation..." who you believe "...would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.", when you are not able to do simple arithmetic and formulate simple arguments is amusing, albeit a bit sad.

LOL.... read the quote above to find the 'evidence' used to throw out the heliocentric theory! What a hoot! Nothing can compare to bringing religious cult thinking to a science topic.

On 1/4/2026 at 10:46 PM, rattlesnake said:

Copernicus made the below statement. Does that sound more religious or scientific to you?

In the middle of all, however, resides the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who would place this lamp in any other or better place than this, from where it can illuminate the whole universe all at once? Not unjustly, then, some call the sun the lamp of the cosmos, others its mind and others still its governor. Trismegistus calls it a visible god.

Who cares.... it is way, way, way, way more truthful than your posts!

On 1/4/2026 at 10:46 PM, rattlesnake said:

You are showing your ignorance of the topic. Heliocentrism is essentially a resurrected pagan belief, imposed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits to counter Luther's Reformation. If you don't know what I am talking about, look it up and educate yourself on it.

LOL.... the history of heliocentrism is just an amusing anecdote. I can see you're entertained by it.

But... if you think somehow the oft-repeated precise observations used to divine the physical nature of the Universe were influenced by the attempts by some religious sects to maintain their power and influence..... LOL.... knock yourself out!

I asked AI

Question:

What is the most popular theory about the Earth? Can we rank the main versions such as globe, round, flat, ice walls, and categorize the different models?

Reply:

Yes. The cleanest way to rank them is this:

1. Globe / oblate spheroid
   This is the mainstream scientific model and by far the most widely accepted. Surveys show overwhelming majorities say the Earth is round, while flat-Earth belief remains a small minority.

2. Flat Earth
   This is the main fringe alternative. It is not one single model, but a cluster of related beliefs. In U.S. polling, agreement with flat-Earth claims has shown up at around 1 in 10 in some surveys, which is still fringe but not zero.

3. Ice wall
   This is usually not a separate theory on its own. It is most often a sub-version of flat Earth. In that version, Antarctica is reimagined as a ring or wall of ice surrounding the flat world.

A useful way to categorize the models is this:

A. Scientific model

• Earth is an oblate spheroid

• gravity pulls toward Earth’s center

• Antarctica is a continent at the south pole

• this is the model used in astronomy, navigation, aviation, and physics

B. Flat-Earth dome model

• Earth is a flat disc or plane

• Sun, Moon, and stars move above it

• often enclosed by a dome or firmament

• Antarctica is treated as the outer boundary or ice wall

C. Flat-Earth infinite plane model

• Earth is not a single disc but an endless plane

• some versions imagine more lands beyond Antarctica or beyond the known world

D. Religious/scriptural flat Earth

• based mainly on literal interpretations of religious texts

• less about physics, more about worldview and doctrine

E. Simulation hypothesis

• not really an Earth-shape theory

• more a philosophical idea that reality itself could be simulated

• belongs more to metaphysics than geography or astronomy

So in short:

1. Globe first by an enormous margin

2. Flat Earth as the main fringe alternative

3. Ice wall as a flat-Earth sub-theory, not its own top-level model

4. Simulation as a separate philosophical category, not really a map of Earth at all

Globe is the dominant model by far. Flat Earth is the fringe alternative. Ice wall is usually just a flat-Earth add-on, not a separate theory. Simulation is different again, because it is about the nature of reality, not mainly the shape of Earth

So if you simply want to philosophise about models of the Earth, where do you place yourself?

For me, it is easy, and without much struggle, to say that the most tempting idea is that all of this is some kind of game, and that someone, somewhere, is just messing with us and having a great time in a bizarre way.

And that may be the strangest part of it all: beneath the different styles, opinions, and excuses, a surprising number of people seem to operate from the same hollow place, where self-interest, distraction, and indifference matter more than truth, decency, or other human beings.

That is, of course, a very black-and-white way of putting it, but it is still an honest observation.

So here we are in the middle of crazy times, though maybe every age says that about itself, with media bias, the West looking tired and weakened, power shifting, and a handful of giant companies tightening their grip on what we do, when we do it, and even what we are allowed to think.

We can question the world as much as we want, but will it change anything?

On 1/4/2026 at 4:10 PM, rattlesnake said:

According to David Wardlaw Scott, Newton confessed that the explanation of the moon's action on the tides did not fit well with his theory of gravitation, which asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller (but the official mass of the Moon is only one-eighth of that of the Earth).

Newton didn't realize that the entire Earth, not just the oceans, does move due to the gravitational force of the moon. In fact it is the barycenter of the Earth/moon (about 1k miles below the surface) system that orbits the sun. It is not the center of the Earth that traces the solar orbit. In effect the Earth wobbles somewhat along its path around the sun due to the moon.

On 1/4/2026 at 4:10 PM, rattlesnake said:

Anyway, here is a question for you: why do bubbles go up in water?

Here is a question for you: why does most wood go up in water?

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Newton didn't realize that the entire Earth, not just the oceans, does move due to the gravitational force of the moon. In fact it is the barycenter of the Earth/moon (about 1k miles below the surface) system that orbits the sun. It is not the center of the Earth that traces the solar orbit. In effect the Earth wobbles somewhat along its path around the sun due to the moon.

Here is a question for you: why does most wood go up in water?

And everyone that learns in physics, understand the limits of Newtonian physics.

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That you fancy yourself independent minded for believing the world is flat, and that you've made some "...radical break from the previous generation..." who you believe "...would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.", when you are not able to do simple arithmetic and formulate simple arguments is amusing, albeit a bit sad.

I wasn't talking about myself, I said I don't watch Rogan.

And (as you well understood the first time) I explained that I had made a copy/paste error from another discussion which led me to make an erroneous assumption, which I quickly ackowledged before confirming 8 inches per mile squared is indeed correct, and apologised for having contradicted you when you were actually right.

Funny how these light-hearted discussions always have to devolve into something serious and personal, with posts finishing with "that's sad" etc.

Relax, it really isn't a big deal.

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how on a flight from Johannesburg to Sydney, a B787 goes twice the speed of sound and double the range in the wrong direction.

I have a full-time job and a family which have priority over my conspiracy musings, you will have to wait another couple of days.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I have a full-time job and a family which have priority over my conspiracy musings, you will have to wait another couple of days.

All you have to do is look at the map.

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I wasn't talking about myself, I said I don't watch Rogan.

And (as you well understood the first time) I explained that I had made a copy/paste error from another discussion which led me to make an erroneous assumption, which I quickly ackowledged before confirming 8 inches per mile squared is indeed correct, and apologised for having contradicted you when you were actually right.

Funny how these light-hearted discussions always have to devolve into something serious and personal, with posts finishing with "that's sad" etc.

Relax, it really isn't a big deal.

But it is amusing

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

centrical force

What is "centrical force"?

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But it is amusing

Amusing, yes, that's my reason for being here. Sad, no. At least I am not sad.

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I have a full-time job and a family which have priority over my conspiracy musings, you will have to wait another couple of days.

Now there's a question...

Would you knowingly employ a conspiracy theorist?

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

All you have to do is look at the map.

I know from experience that these discussions take hours.

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

Now there's a question...

Would you knowingly employ a conspiracy theorist?

I could, yes… In any case, it would not be a disqualifier and would even tend to be a positive point in some cases (but there are conspiracy theorists whom I don't like, and non-conspiracy theorists I like, so they are not absolute 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' categories).

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And everyone that learns in physics, understand the limits of Newtonian physics.

That’s the fundamental difference between science and conspiracy thinking.

Science is quite happy to say, “we don’t know yet” — and then keeps testing, questioning, and updating as new evidence comes in. Being wrong isn’t failure; it’s part of the process.

Conspiracy thinking works the other way round.

The conclusion comes first. Then it’s a case of rummaging around for anything — however flimsy — that supports it, while ignoring or twisting everything that doesn’t. And crucially, the original idea never changes.

So one side is constantly learning.

The other is just constantly defending.

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

We can question the world as much as we want, but will it change anything?

Yes — that’s exactly how things do change.

Every bit of progress we take for granted comes from people questioning what’s already there, passing on knowledge, and refining it over time. That’s how civilisation moves forward — not by accepting everything at face value, but by testing, challenging, and improving it.

Without that, you don’t get progress — you get drift. And not always in a good direction.

The difference is in how the questioning is done. Critical thinking — the real kind — leads to advances in science, philosophy, and society. But when questioning turns into rejecting expertise altogether or replacing evidence with opinion, you don’t get progress, you get confusion.

There’s also a broader issue: the erosion of education and critical thinking skills. Whether by neglect or design, it leaves a gap that’s easily filled by simplistic answers and loud voices. That might suit those chasing influence or power, but it doesn’t help society move forward in any meaningful way.

So yes — questioning absolutely changes things.

But only when it’s grounded in a genuine effort to understand, not just to confirm what we already want to believe.

7 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

, the post-Reformation historical contex

That is cherry-picking using a totally Eurocentric period in history which placed the sun at the centre of the universe – this, of course, is now seen to be incorrect – it was known in Europe to be proposed first by ancient Greek philosophers, with the earliest known model appearing around 270 BC. Most of the original theories of a round earth came from Arabic (Islamic) and Chinese cultures – as they had better maths and scientific observation

10 minutes ago, kwilco said:

But only when it’s grounded in a genuine effort to understand, not just to confirm what we already want to believe.

That is exactly the point I have held throughout this thread. Science, opinion, and morality should always be under scrutiny. That is healthy, and necessary. But scrutiny only has value when it is rooted in evidence, method, and intellectual honesty. Once it is reduced to the level of flat earth, ice walls, hidden cities, or blanket vaccine mistrust, then it is no longer serious questioning. It becomes confusion built on false premises, where distrust starts replacing reality rather than testing it.

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

That is exactly the point I have held throughout this thread. Science, opinion, and morality should always be under scrutiny. That is healthy, and necessary. But scrutiny only has value when it is rooted in evidence, method, and intellectual honesty. Once it is reduced to the level of flat earth, ice walls, hidden cities, or blanket vaccine mistrust, then it is no longer serious questioning. It becomes confusion built on false premises, where distrust starts replacing reality rather than testing it.

As isaid right at the start, you don't just believe in one conspiracy; you inevitably buy into them all.

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As isaid right at the start, you don't just believe in one conspiracy; you inevitably buy into them all.

It depends on how you define conspiracy.

7 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As isaid right at the start, you don't just believe in one conspiracy; you inevitably buy into them all.

I can believe something, but that is not the same as it being true.

There are also well-known structures used to motivate people and keep them moving in the same direction for what is presented as the good of society. Part of that has always involved shaping and controlling public opinion. We know that.

59 minutes ago, kwilco said:

What is "centrical force"?

One may assume centrifugal was meant

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

One may assume centrifugal was meant

I would assume centripetal was meant or at least should have been.

9 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

One may assume centrifugal was meant

Well that doesn't exist either! - Centrifugal force is not a "real" physical force in the scientific sense but rather a fictitious or pseudo-force/belief

26 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It depends on how you define conspiracy.

Sorry I meant “conspiracy theory” - a belief that some influential or controlling organization

or group is secretly responsible for a notable event or phenomenon.

 

 They tend to fall into three categories: event conspiracies, systemic conspiracies, and superconspiracies.

24 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I can believe something, but that is not the same as it being true

which is basically not science and how consiracy thories work

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

which is basically not science and how consiracy thories work

🤔😁