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 <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> 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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Dec 23 2006 - 12:32:40 PST