CathInfo.com

I refuse to believe Donachie is serious when he writes these posts. Either high, drunk, trolling or using a translator? I don't know. It's just incoherent ramblings.

Tradman, this is not a case of "you globers".

So, you're not a glober? Just because you're not all on the same page, if someone thinks earth is a globe and defends it, they are a glober.

Are you A) high or B) drunk when you write nonsense like this? It's not a matter of disagreement or agreement on a position. I'm saying it literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

It probably seemed quite sane and profound when you wrote it -- but in the morning, when the pot and/or booze wears off, it's a load of silly nonsense.


You wrote this at 3:22 AM, and your other nonsense post was in the 1:00 AM range.

It makes total sense but perhaps one doesn't want to understand it. This question involves physics as well as logic as much as the truth of simple facts. As in this question, when is a dog or boat upside down? and which is the right side up? The way to answer that is in relation to the center (a major center) in extension and intension of the object.

Besides that, do universals exist? I say they do. Bertrand Russell even advocated for universals by the simple principle of likeness, as in like this or like that. This question of universals and likeness also impacts space and the matter of geometric relation. The way to work out the question of universals in space is through sphericity not flatness. For the Earth to be flat messes things up in terms of the reality of universals.

One should remember too that the principle of vision in the eyeball works in sphericity not flatness. The important things there are the sphericity of water and light. There are principles there that will relate to the rest of creation ... including the shape of the Earth. Thales speculated that the world (the Earth and so forth as the cosmos) rested on water, but then the question is how does one really believe that? So then it is water all the way down (instead of turtles) to the last drop, which brings up the problem again of infinite regress which flat Earthers will never get around (no pun intended exactly), whether it's the sphericity of drops of water or counting numbers to the very last one.

If at the edge of the Earth it is not turtles, golf balls or drops of water all the way down, then it must be at least the counting numbers (which are round too), but one'll never reach the end. That's why I suggest instead the uniform relation of the curve of a circle and that of a sphere to the infinite. That way one can stop counting all the way down and just accept the curve.

Nature has a way and tries to find a way to minimize the relation to the infinite to increase stability of a thing, especially a little thing like the Earth.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/221210/why-sphere-minimizes-surface-area-for-a-given-volume

You have the wrong mental picture of FE.  The earth, as a whole, is a sphere (including the firmament and bottomless pit).  The land (upon which we walk) alone is flat.

I can see why you think FE makes no sense if you simply picture earth as a flat disc, while ignoring the firmament and the depths below.

Many cannot seem to get over the whole "infinite void" of space angle which is central to the modern cosmology, which is why they immediately jump to the idea that the earth is a flat planetoid floating in space. Rather than realize that the universe is the earth-plane enclosed in the system you describe. There are no other "earth-like planets" out there that we can go to. We live in a bubble with waters above and waters below. The planets (i.e. "wandering stars") are just that: wandering stars and may only be miles in diameter and subsist in the waters above, or within, the solid Firmament itself.