This essay is primarily a response to commenter Wednesday’s World, who contributed a thought in the comments section of my previous post. It can be seen here. I recommend checking it out prior to reading my relatively short response (well, too long for a reply in the comments section, but much shorter than my usual voluble yarns).
*
Hi Wednesday’s World. Thanks for visiting my page and for commenting.
As one who avers that all movement between bodies is relative, how such movement is observed by the senses may not in fact describe the existent properties of said bodies which are moving. In other words, how we observe things to move relative to us may not necessarily be a true representation of how those things actually exist in space; or rather, in a vacuum of themselves.
Take the duality of light paradox. Science says that light is both a particle and a wave. But this is only because human beings observe it as one or the other depending on the environmental context. But I do not accept the premise that light can be in essence both what it is and what it is NOT simultaneously simply because we observe it that way. And the reason I do not accept the premise is because it violates THE fundamental law of rational non-contradiction. And to violate reason by asserting and inserting a full-on contradiction destroys the very foundation of existence; which precludes man from ever apprehending truth. And this is a recipe for disaster, and is the clarion call for every despot and bloodthirsty tyrant in world history, bar none.
The contradiction implicit within the wave/particle duality of light paradox is the idea that something is both what it is and what it is not–that is, the idea that an object is “both” and “and”, where something, for example, is both A and B while simultaneously being distinctly A and not B, and vice versa. But what is proclaimed to be “both” and “and” is in reality nothing more than “is” and “is not”. This is, by definition, impossible. So I deny the paradox regardless of how we observe light because the philosophical conclusion which such a paradox renders is entirely untenable, and thus must ultimately destroy the very reality of existence. If there can be “truth” within the idea that something can be both an “is” and an “is not”, then truth is itself, fundamentally, a contradiction, and therefore cannot possibly be true. Because to say that something both “is” and “is not” demands the corollary that that same thing is both simultaneously “true” and “false”. In which case Truth (and Lie) cease to have any meaning whatsoever. If truth is not necessarily true, then it is impossible for man to know anything at all. Which renders all discussions moot, and “reality” and “morality” become nothing more than a matter of who has the biggest gun (or bomb, or sword, or stake, or dunking chair) and the willingness to use it.
You want conspiracy? Try looking at the existential assumptions which drive the very meaning and relevancy and purpose of what is observed, and not simply at what thing is observed. In fact, to ask people to spend so much time examining and questioning the physical nature of what is observed, as though ideas are a function of the sensory data and not of the individual ability to exist as a categorical and absolute SELF…well, that to me is the real conspiracy here with respect to the flat-earth issue.
Also, to your point about telescopes and horizons, and the heavenly revolutions of the sun and the moon, well…just because I observe from terra firma that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the horizon is flat or that a boat does not “dip” below a curvature on the horizon does not mean that I accept the Earth is flat. This again is a function of my premise that what is observed does not necessarily represent the existent nature–the Truth–of the objects I am observing relative to me.
*
To understand the true nature of ourselves and other objects which exist, we must examine our philosophical premises and develop irreducible metaphysical and epistemological axioms which are completely consistent, non-redundant, and non-contextual. It is only via this that can we claim to possess Truth.
Truth is not a function of science, as I said in my last post. And thus I find it of little practical use to try to prove empirical scientific data false, simply because at the end of the day, science–with respect to empirical evidence–is going to destroy all contrary arguments, because A. they have MUCH better equipment than you or I do, and are MUCH better at math than everyone else (because they have to be), and mathematics is the single greatest–and, ultimately, the only relevant–means by which all empirically observed data can be classified as actual in the empirical sense and thus evident in the empirical sense; and B. they have no reason to lie or to cover up anything they discover, such as a flat earth, because, again, truth is not a function of empirical data but a function of the philosophical premises by which any of that data has any relevancy or meaning to humanity–or, more specifically, to the existence and the essence of the individual human being. In other words, scientists, or rather, scientific empiricists (because not all scientists are necessarily scientific, mathematical, and empirical determinists) only have to convince people that THEIR existential interpretive premises are the correct ones (e.g. causal determinism, consciousness as illusion, the reality and deterministic force of Space and Time, the material transcendence and universal “governance” of physical laws, the transcendent, autonomous and self-contained existence (and thus causal power) of Abstraction, such as mathematical proofs). After that, they can be perfectly truthful about what they observe as the physical properties of the universe and the objects in it. Because once you control the interpretive philosophical premises–once you are in charge of the axioms…the irreducibles–everything becomes a direct function of those premises. There is nothing then to be gained by lying about empirical data because all such data MUST inevitably and inexorably conform to the premises.
We need to understand that reality is a function of what we believe…or rather, our ability to conceptualize, and from this to formulate ideas, not our ability to observe. Because of this, there is simply no reason to lie about the shape of the earth. There is no reason for a conspiracy. Control is a function of who gets to define reality according to the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions we hold about the nature of existence; and by this I mean the nature of HUMAN existence, and by this I mean the nature of individual human existence, because, really, that is the only existence which matters; the only essence which matters. What reality looks like is besides the point. There is no reason to lie about the empirical data–the observed data–because what is observed must simply be the necessary and inviolable result of the premises, period. The premise will and MUST define what is observed, regardless of HOW it is observed. Because what is observed is a direct function of the premises we hold about the nature of reality…of existence, of essence. And this is because reality is not a function of empirical observation, but of philosophy; of ideas. Philosophy…the ability of man to know himself and to know what he is not is the root of Truth. Philosophy defines material reality as a function of man’s metaphysical essence. And all that man observes MUST comport and WILL comport to the irreducible philosophical axioms, be they rational or irrational. It is our job to make sure they are rational. Then, when we do, we can know that what is observed can be described rationally, and reality can be established because Truth will have been bestowed upon what is seen. But the form of what is seen is not the issue. In itself, the form of the Earth is irrelevant. Thus, there is no reason to lie about it. There is no reason for a conspiracy.
*
You observe something. You reproduce what is observed in various contexts in order to establish that its pattern is one of uniform consistency. Then you create an arcane (but practical and imminently utilitarian) mathematical proof for the observed event, substituting particulars (e.g. the apple, the tree, the ground) with abstract universals (e.g. x, y, and z). And then, suddenly, seemingly without regard to the destruction, war, torture, abuse, psychological obliteration, and bloodshed you are initiating you proclaim the mathematical proof not a conceptual abstraction devised by man to organize his environment to his own promotion and pleasure but as the “language” of an actual autonomous cosmic governing AGENT, or FORCE, which determines by its power every action (with respect to the movement in question…that is, the movement to which the mathematical proof relates) of every object in the universe.
Now, to be fair, this is most likely due to the sheer and staggeringly immense power of mathematics to enable man to manipulate his environment to his own will and whim and to codify it conceptually thus making it universally accessible to all men, which grants the illusion I think of some kind of cosmic, causal universality. And this rather than a form of intentional malevolence whereupon a certain group of impish nerds in lab coats and comb-overs wish to subject and subdue and subordinate the vast “unenlightened” masses to their whims and pleasures. Alas, we have the institutional Church of ALL religions for that. Satan is always in the place everyone has been convinced he is not, I suppose.
*
Finally–and this is not nearly as important as the aforementioned points–I still insist that the most glaring “scientific” flaw in the flat-earth theory is the fact that gravity is uniform upon the world. That is, no matter where you stand, you weigh the same. This could not be possible if the earth were flat. A disc shaped earth, or a one dimensional earth, would demand an entirely different gravitational rubric. This would affect everything in the universe–from the revolution of the sun and the moon to the position of the stars in the sky to how you looked to what you could do to how you identified yourself as “human”, if there could even be such a thing (there couldn’t, I guess is my point). In other words, if it weren’t for a round earth you could not take issue with the scientific data, or claim your own as a counter-proof, in order to deny a round earth because the data wouldn’t exist in its present condition in the first place.
unreformingtheology 
Plato (427–347 BC) travelled to southern Italy to study Pythagorean mathematics. When he returned to Athens and established his school, Plato also taught his students that Earth was a sphere though he offered no justifications….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
I read in gricketson’s comment something that has intrigued me for some time but have struggled to articulate, and that’s that if someone has been injured by the philosophy of another, in this case Platonism, then that makes everything Plato believed and taught a lie. Would it not make more sense that the satanic mind behind the abuse, abuse in the name of and even adopt some truths of the very one who stands to be seen as the source of abuse, in this case, Jesus Christ? What better way to prepare people to reject essential truths and run the opposite direction, ready to embrace lies which go nowhere, or worse, become swept away by the great delusion anticipated in the last days (not applying the flat earth society to the great delusion at all …I believe it’ll be way more subtle and destructive)! I’ve come to loathe the overly used and tired baby/bathwater analogy, but does it not apply here?
Gravity is not exactly uniform. In physics 101 in college they made us do some experiment dropping weight and calculated gravity based on whatever the formula was and we found it to be under the universal constant. That was the point of the experiment. Gravity does change depending on where you are but it stays close to the standard value.
Anyway, I believe the earth is a sphere but I don’t believe gravity is generated by mass, so I can well imagine someone who believed in a flat earth would certainly reject that gravity is generated by mass since I believe the earth is a sphere but I reject that gravity is generated by mass.
I think the much simpler argument for a spherical earth is how the sun or moon never gets any closer no matter how far you travel. If the earth was flat, you ought to be able to travel fast enough and far enough to get right under it. But as it is, if you perceive the sun as basically 100 miles away from you and you travel that 100 miles, the sun stays in the exact same spot the whole time. Then there is the horizon issue. There’s clearly a spherical aspect to horizon, you almost can feel the sphereicallyness if you focus intently on the horizon while moving.
Also, if the sun or moon were to rise and set over (or on) a flat earth, they would have to make a much bigger circle to be able to cover it.
My awesome text diagram:
O sun 0 moon
______________________flat_earth__________________________
I should be able to perceive the more exaggerated arc that the sun and moon would have to take to make an arc around the whole uber-long land-mass.
But if the earth is a sphere, the arc needed by the sun and moon to arc around the shpere doesn’t have to have as big a radius because its traveling around a compacted spherical mass, not a long rectangle or line. (I’m assuming a flat-earther would believe in geocentricity, which I quite frankly find more convincing that heliocentricity anyway.)
To the commenter who said Plato offered no proofs, I’m sure you made that up. Because I’m sure he at least offered these, since even someone as mathematically challenged as my self could come up with them in 20 seconds.
wow, that first sentence should be “dropping weights and calculating gravity”….
Also, the phases of the moon. I don’t even remember what causes the phases of the moon, and yet intuitively it doesn’t seem the moon would have these phases on a flat earth. Let’s see, what causes those phases…oh yeah, has to do with the position of the sun relative to the moon. On a flat earth, the sun and moon should follow a flat 2d path. You shouldn’t get the 3d orbit kind of thing. It should be more like a train on a track. So the position of the sun relative to the moon should always be the same on a flat earth. The only way to explain the phases on a flat earth would be the silliness like moon is alive and eats more on certain days or something. The Manicheans said each month the moon collects the souls of the saved, and the amount of lighted surface you see is the amount of saved souls, so a full moon means saved people were gathered to capacity. Without a spherical earth I don’t see how you can liberate yourself from such-like nonsense in explaining the phases of the moon.
David,
Thanks for your comments. Very interesting…more to think about; though, to be honest, and intending no disrespect to Gricketson (and I’m sure he understands this, and how much I appreciate him), I’m not sure it’s of much value to consider this topic any further. There are just so many problems with the flat-earth theory that part of me thinks that the convoluted nature of the idea, it s models, and its assumptions, and its assertions, is part of the “argument”. Confusing people often entices them to go away…so they win by forfeit. I’ve not bothered to engage my brain any further than my gravity idea–with respect to dismantling the “physics” of the theory–because a.) other people are much better at that than I am, and have already made extremely convincing and dare I say, inviolable, counter arguments…and b.) think the whole issue is, to me, a “conspiracy within a conspiracy”–that is, is an intentional distraction by a group of people who want to draw attention away from the real issues, which are philosophical.
I mean, I don’t shy away from conspiracy theories; social skeptics have every right to be suspicious of what they see and are told by their “leaders”, and especially the mouthpieces (the press) who shill collectivism for the prevailing philosopher kings. For example, I find it mighty coincidental that on the eve of the big supreme court votes on the ADA and gay marriage, and in the midst of a nation-wide racial dialogue (re. Rachel Dolezal) which carried with it the the potential to undo sixty years of Marxist racial politics (and the titanic amounts money and power amassed ex post facto) we have this black church shooting complete with a picture-perfect young, white, (utterly aryan), male, blond, blue-eyed, dead-eyed, confederate flag waving racist, and the victims–poor, elderly, kindly, dulcet-toned black people who are the very shimmering image of childlike innocence and universal acceptance.
Sorry, but color me doubtful. Ditto with the Sandy Hook shooting. I do not think it is a stretch to consider that the powerful oligarchs, plutocrats, autocrats, and self-appointed political clergymen of the most powerful and richest collective in the history of the world will perform passion plays in order to influence both the masses and the courts into their bidding; indeed, with a naive and utterly complicit media (or as I call them, the Ministry of Propaganda), it is almost a foregone conclusion.
But the flat-earth theory is not like that. There is no philosophical reason these adherents can give as to why anyone would bother trying to hide something like a flat earth in the first place. It is not a conspiracy for an IDEA’S sake; it is a conspiracy for conspiracy’s sake. And that’s why I don’t trust it; and that’s why I focus on the lack of a “need” for such a conspiracy in my essay.
You got me interested enough in this to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87cWHh7t904 and I found that their greatest proof of the theory could also be the greatest disproof. Their greatest proof is the 1892 Standard Map of the World! (Google it!) And its pretty impressive. All the continents are smushed together in the middle surrounding the North Pole, with Antartica as a circular barrier on all sides. Surely we’re on a flat earth surrounded by a dome hidden several hundred miles behind intraversible ice guarded by all the world governments who have made a treaty declaring nobody may own Antartica (just so they keep people away, don’t yu know)….how could such a theory, nay, a fact, be disproven?
Well for starters by looking at the 1892 Standard Map of the World and asking, where is North, where is South? Simple! The flat earthers will even tell you straight up with no shame: North is in the center and every direction you go from there is South. Oh, ok…..so then where is East and West? Every direction you go from the center is South, because the North Pole is the center….so have we eliminated East and West altogether? No, you have to be able to travel East and West…just wouldn’t be realistic enough of a matrix world if you couldn’t……hmmmm…lets see…surely we can find East and West on the 1892 Standard Map of the World…surely!
Ah, found it. To go East or West you have to travel around the sphere on this flat earth. Ut uh. Now that could be a problem….
It is interesting though that one of the high altitude nuclear tests done by the US in the 60s was called Operation Fish Bowl. The flat earthers say the govmnt was trying to penetrate the artificial dome surrounding our “fish bowl”…if the earth is a sphere, why did they name it that unless it was to create the flat earth theory? Govn’mt always pulling something ain’t they…
David,
Yes. It seems as though they haven’t really thought this one through. Your “elimination of east and west” argument is very interesting.
This video showing how certain flight paths make more sense on the flat map, however, is rather interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k7_AxiYC8g Also the thing about the sun and moon being directly opposite each other in Alaska that day….is that possible on a spherical earth? hmmmmm.
And I think I figured out why they would want to hide it if the earth was flat. Because it would mean it was obviously specially created. Their whole notion is that the earth is just one insignificant *planet* orbiting one insignificant *star* in one insignificant galaxy out of billions of galaxies with billions of stars just like the sun and billions of *planets* just like earth.
But men have only ever observed a very tiny amount of planets from their telescopes…and the same ole same ole stars, with polaris stationary. And the earth was never considered a planet in ancient times since a planet was a wondering star, not a world. If we live inside a special habitat bounded up top by a dome and around by impenetrable ice, then it must mean earth was created specifically for us, and is not only the center of the universe, but basically is the universe, with the sun, moon, and stars, rotating in the upper region of the dome…..in other words, the only way to make God insignificant is the spherical earth in a infinite sea of planets theory. If the earth is a flat disc inside a half dome, then there’s no question God made it. That’s why they’d have to hide it.
plus it would mean that up is actually up and down is actually down, so heaven could indeed be up, and hell indeed down below the earth
Talk me down man! Talk me down! They may be convincing me! Lol, this video is hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0nHCP_yVEI One of the greatest comedians of all time.
then this thing about the new moon….why does a new moon just become invisible rather than causing an eclipse? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfJXp4ePu0 Then there’s the wave map thing he shows. My thing from a week or two ago about erasing East and West….well, ships have to navigate by compass for a reason right….perhaps because the earth is a flat circular disk where north and south only are straight and east and west do curve….otherwise, if east and west were really straight (as on a globe) why do ships have to navigate by compass? So I was thinking of it exactly backwards.