Brent:
let me start at the end:
"So why don't you believe it?"
because I am prejudiced by the brainwashing I got in 101 science education,
the 'conventional' thinking of the (ongoing) science establishment - still
brainwashing the upcoming scientist-generations with the same '101' -
(which is also an answer to your 'conventional' quest:)
Unconventional is a lot on this list many of them to my liking (personal!)
and seemingly to yours, too.

I leave it to the "conventional"(<G>) scientists to agree whether the Earth
is spherical (if it IS?) and used this example from the precedent texts just

as an 'unconventional' variant thinking.
We (all, I suppose) are under a lot of influence from the 101 sciences and
my point was exactly to raise another possibility (absurd as it may be).
I did not aim it against anybodies post.

The greater question in my mind is: how much of platonic thinking stems
from this "101"?

John M




On 12/22/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to