Is the earth round/spherical?

[MooNiNite]

I read the paper published by Northwestern which has credibility. The pressures and temperatures are too great for their to be liquid water.

 

Im not disagreeing with you. I said "thank you" for your comment. 

 

As to the certainty behind the paper published by Northwestern university, i'm not sure. Its hard to actually tell what is 400 miles beneath our feet. 

 

The link with the ancient maps of earth is really the major aspect of my comment. 

Edited November 2, 2015 by MooNiNite

[ralis]

The history of the human race on earth is interesting too. Once again the mainstream understanding is completely wrong.  

 

Modern science teaches that humans are only 5,000 years old. 

 

Only persons who believe that intelligent design is responsible for human life. Modern science does not promote intelligent design, but evolutionary biology.

[MooNiNite]

Only persons who believe that intelligent design is responsible for human life. Modern science does not promote intelligent design, but evolutionary biology.

If they promote evolutionary biology, then why are we so much more evolved than anything else on this planet? And wouldn't the age of humans on Earth be even slightly important to them?

Edited November 2, 2015 by MooNiNite

[ralis]

Im not disagreeing with you. I said "thank you" for your comment. 

 

As to the certainty behind the paper published by Northwestern university, i'm not sure. Its hard to actually tell what is 400 miles beneath our feet. 

 

The link with the ancient maps of earth is really the major aspect of my comment. 

 

The paper in question does not state an absolute certainty, but is a summation of ongoing research.

[Taomeow]

Hey Taomeow ,

 

Are you going to address my criticism of your idea about the earth morphing into a top shape .... 

 

,,, or just ignore that one and hope it will go away ? 

 

Ack...  didn't you read my "Not doing any homework to prove anything to anybody" declaration of independence from being given assignments by whoever is not my Teacher?..  Do take a look -- it's in WeiWuWei.

 

Luckily, this one is a no-brainer -- take a look here: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/earth_precess.htm

 

complete with the picture of the spinning-top Earth which alas refused to post in my original post on the subject.

 

Also, even though I'm not under oath when I post at a banter forum, I normally tell no lies --

also, even though I am a practicing taoist with many connections in the non-3D realms, I don't maintain any imaginary friends in the human realm

and never gave you any reasonable grounds to suspect me of either.  I told you plainly that I got this info from a friend who is an astrophysicist.  He specializes in celestial dynamics and relativity, and is currently working as a research scientist for the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C..  I got the spinning top from him in response to a private inquiry completely unrelated to this-here thread, but thought it's a nice bit to share.  (Who'd have guessed...)  The primary (and only) reason for the inquiry was that I needed something astronomically correct for a particular episode of my sci-fi novel under construction, and wanted to consult him on that so whatever it turns into in the literary form has some tangible scientific backing should anyone want to question it. 

 

As an aside, that's what I always do if I'm not a specialist in the subject under investigation -- I consult specialists.  Both kinds, incidentally, the orthodox and the dissenting/unorthodox/alternative, to know both sides of the story before arriving at my own agree/disagree conclusions -- not just one as our esteemed detractors like to do. 

 

Oh, and what I gave you, that spinning thingie, that's orthodox science.  Just a field you are not familiar with.  Can you live with that, or d'you reckon I owe you something else?..   

[ralis]

If they promote evolutionary biology, then why are we so much more evolved than anything else on this planet?

 

Evolution takes place over millions of years and humans are part of that evolutionary tree. If you are interested in learning the scientific method, Thomas Kuhn's work is an excellent primer based on critical thinking.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446427178&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn

[MooNiNite]

Evolution takes place over millions of years and humans are part of that evolutionary tree. If you are interested in learning the scientific method, Thomas Kuhn's work is an excellent primer based on critical thinking.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446427178&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+kuhn

 

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. But if you think that the scientific establishment regarding human life on earth is accurate i would disagree. 

[ralis]

Ack...  didn't you read my "Not doing any homework to prove anything to anybody" declaration of independence from being given assignments by whoever is not my Teacher?..  Do take a look -- it's in WeiWuWei.

 

Luckily, this one is a no-brainer -- take a look here: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/earth_precess.htm

 

complete with the picture of the spinning-top Earth which alas refused to post in my original post on the subject.

 

Also, even though I'm not under oath when I post at a banter forum, I normally tell no lies --

also, even though I am a practicing taoist with many connections in the non-3D realms, I don't maintain any imaginary friends in the human realm

and never gave you any reasonable grounds to suspect me of either.  I told you plainly that I got this info from a friend who is an astrophysicist.  He specializes in celestial dynamics and relativity, and is currently working as a research scientist for the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C..  I got the spinning top from him in response to a private inquiry completely unrelated to this-here thread, but thought it's a nice bit to share.  (Who'd have guessed...)  The primary (and only) reason for the inquiry was that I needed something astronomically correct for a particular episode of my sci-fi novel under construction, and wanted to consult him on that so whatever it turns into in the literary form has some tangible scientific backing should anyone want to question it. 

 

As an aside, that's what I always do if I'm not a specialist in the subject under investigation -- I consult specialists.  Both kinds, incidentally, the orthodox and the dissenting/unorthodox/alternative, to know both sides of the story before arriving at my own agree/disagree conclusions -- not just one as our esteemed detractors like to do. 

 

Oh, and what I gave you, that spinning thingie, that's orthodox science.  Just a field you are not familiar with.  Can you live with that, or d'you reckon I owe you something else?..   

 

Your research scientist friend has written papers with this finding? If not, what is he basing his supposition on?

[ralis]

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. But if you think that the scientific establishment regarding human life on earth is accurate i would disagree. 

 

Are you a believer in intelligent design? College student? On what basis do you disagree?

[Brian]

<snip>

Modern science teaches that humans are only 5,000 years old.

<snip>

 

Ummm...

 

No. No, it doesn't.

[MooNiNite]

Ummm...

 

No. No, it doesn't.

 

They teach Human civilization goes back to 4,000 bc

[MooNiNite]

Here you go the oldest civilizations according to the mainstream understanding.

 

http://www.ancienthistorylists.com/ancient-civilizations/10-oldest-ancient-civilizations-ever-existed/

[ralis]

They teach Human civilization goes back to 4,000 bc

 

You made a statement that humans are 5k years old. That is entirely different than stating human civilization is 5k years old.

Edited November 2, 2015 by ralis

[Taomeow]

Your research scientist friend has written papers with this finding? If not, what is he basing his supposition on?

 

As of October 27, 2015, Google Scholar returns for him an h index of 21,^[2] with a total number of citations equal to 1012.

According to NASA ADS, his h index is 19, with 843 citations (the number of non-self citations being 661).

The tori^[3] index is 26.9, and the riq^[3] index is 215.

 

He is a member of the International Astronomical Union and the American Astronomical Society (AAS).

In 2008 - 2009, he served as the Chair of the Division on Dynamical Astronomy of the AAS.

 

He has also co-authored the following book:

 

^ Kopeikin, S.; Efroimsky M. & Kaplan G. (2011). Relativistic Celestial Mechanics of the Solar System. Wiley-VCH, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-527-40856-6.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2015 by Taomeow

[Brian]

Ack... didn't you read my "Not doing any homework to prove anything to anybody" declaration of independence from being given assignments by whoever is not my Teacher?.. Do take a look -- it's in WeiWuWei.

 

Luckily, this one is a no-brainer -- take a look here: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/earth_precess.htm

 

complete with the picture of the spinning-top Earth which alas refused to post in my original post on the subject.

 

Also, even though I'm not under oath when I post at a banter forum, I normally tell no lies --

also, even though I am a practicing taoist with many connections in the non-3D realms, I don't maintain any imaginary friends in the human realm

and never gave you any reasonable grounds to suspect me of either. I told you plainly that I got this info from a friend who is an astrophysicist. He specializes in celestial dynamics and relativity, and is currently working as a research scientist for the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.. I got the spinning top from him in response to a private inquiry completely unrelated to this-here thread, but thought it's a nice bit to share. (Who'd have guessed...) The primary (and only) reason for the inquiry was that I needed something astronomically correct for a particular episode of my sci-fi novel under construction, and wanted to consult him on that so whatever it turns into in the literary form has some tangible scientific backing should anyone want to question it.

 

As an aside, that's what I always do if I'm not a specialist in the subject under investigation -- I consult specialists. Both kinds, incidentally, the orthodox and the dissenting/unorthodox/alternative, to know both sides of the story before arriving at my own agree/disagree conclusions -- not just one as our esteemed detractors like to do.

 

Oh, and what I gave you, that spinning thingie, that's orthodox science. Just a field you are not familiar with. Can you live with that, or d'you reckon I owe you something else?..

A spinning celestial body behaves exactly like a gyroscope or spinning top -- precession, nutation, the whole nine yards. The physics are identical.

 

I think the confusion on this particular point is really related to the idea of what a spinning top "looks like." There is no special shape for a top. The mechanics involved, however, are very well understood and very Newtonian.

[MooNiNite]

You made a statement that humans are 5k years old. That is entirely different than stating human civilization is 5k years old. The Axial Age is thought to be the beginning of established cities.

 

Typo, i ment civilization.

But my point is still valid.

 

"Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old." -Mainstream science

 

But wait its actually way over 11,000 years old. ...

 

 

So how old are humans on earth? And what is the first civilization?

 

I remember being taught in school it was the Mesopotamian Civilization, which is wrong..

Edited November 2, 2015 by MooNiNite

[Taomeow]

A spinning celestial body behaves exactly like a gyroscope or spinning top -- precession, nutation, the whole nine yards. The physics are identical.

 

I think the confusion on this particular point is really related to the idea of what a spinning top "looks like." There is no special shape for a top. The mechanics involved, however, are very well understood and very Newtonian.

 

Which is why you may want to go back to that post of mine -- the whole point of it was the "looks like" bit being irrelevant.  Which is why I brought up saccades and movies and stuff.  To illustrate a point.  The overall point being that when taoists say "the earth is square," the last thing they concern themselves with is what it "looks like."  It doesn't look like anything separately from who's looking and where he/she/it is looking from. 

 

I see it as simply unscientific, to base something as fundamental as "the shape of the earth" on what it "looks like" to just one species inhabiting it -- through the eyes of someone else at that.  At the Museum of Science and Technology in LA, I once looked through a special apparatus they had to imitate the eyesight of a bee -- you could see the whole premises with the help of that device (rather cumbersome, not a pair of goggles or anything, a floor-mounted machine -- too complex for a pair of goggles, at least at that time) and see what the Museum and its visitors look like to a bee.  I can assure you it was one of those "instant learning" moments.  Nothing can be farther from the human vision than what you saw -- does it mean the bee does not "really" exist, or the museum, or both?  The shape of the museum seen by the bee had absolutely nothing in common with what humans see there...         

[Brian]

Typo, i ment civilization.

But my point is still valid.

 

"Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old." -Mainstream science

 

But wait its actually way over 11,000 years old. ...

 

 

So how old are humans on earth? And what is the first civilization?

 

I remember being taught in school it was the Mesopotamian Civilization, which is wrong..

You were taught in school that the earliest known civilization was in Mesopotamia, which is a very different thing and which was not wrong.

[MooNiNite]

You were taught in school that the earliest known civilization was in Mesopotamia, which is a very different thing and which was not wrong.

well i would disagree. They date it at 6000 years ago. which is wrong, and Im not sure how else to teach you. so oh well..

Edited November 2, 2015 by MooNiNite

[Brian]

 

well i would disagree. They date it at 6000 years ago. which is wrong, and Im not sure how else to teach you. so oh well..

LMFAO

[MooNiNite]

LMFAO

 

What's funny to me is that you completely disregard the facts. 

[Brian]

 

What's funny to me is that you completely disregard the facts.

What facts do you believe you have presented?

[MooNiNite]

What facts do you believe you have presented?

That Gopekli Tepi changed mainstream understanding of human civilization as we know it. 

[Brian]

Current understanding is necessarily dynamic. That is the nature of current understanding. Civilization is almost certainly far older than we have reliable evidence to confirm, probably far older than we will ever confirm. As additional information is uncovered and validated, current understanding is adjusted accordingly. This is how the process works.

[MooNiNite]

Current understanding is necessarily dynamic. That is the nature of current understanding. Civilization is almost certainly far older than we have reliable evidence to confirm, probably far older than we will ever confirm. As additional information is uncovered and validated, current understanding is adjusted accordingly. This is how the process works.

i agree. So it is important not to be so rigid and assume everyone is wrong when they disagree with conventional understanding. Wim Hof for example just rearranged modern science understanding of the human body's capabilities to withstand both cold and heat. You would think after 6,000 years we would know the limits of the human body, but nope.