John Mikes wrote:
I really should not, but here it goes:
Brent, you seem to value the conventional ways given by the model used to formulate physical sciences and Euclidian geometry etc. over mental ways or ideational arguments.

All models are mental and ideational.  That's why they are models.  Can you explain what you mean 
by "conventional" and "unconventional"?

(There may be considerations to judge mixed marriages for good argumentation without waiting for physically observable damages.) Imagine (since Einstein introduced us to spacetime-curvatures already) that the Earth IS flat with the format-proviso that as you approach the rim it changes your "straight-line" progressing: the closer you get the more it changes (something like the big mass ujpon spacetime - mutatis mutandis). So as you close in to the rim, instead of falling off, you curved backwards and arrive (on a different route) at the point of starting. (No proper geometry have I devised for that so far),
It would seem, that the Earth is spherical and yuou circumnavigatged it.

And this would be different from a spherical Earth how?

Like Paul Churchland's tribe who formulated heat as a fluid changing colors according to its concentration (in ho book "Consciousness").and not some ridi\culous vibrations as some human physicists believe.

What's your point?...that any observation can be explained in more than one way and since 
we cannot apprehend "reality itself" we must remain agnostic and indifferent 
between a flat and spherical Earth?

For the innocent bystander: I do not believe this Flat Earth theory.

So why don't you believe it?

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to