MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
How the Ancients measured the Earth (Megalithic)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Jonm



View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's a bit more to it than just these coincidences (above). For the time being, I've put a few more up on the thread below & will try to work round to getting some more of the coincidences written up later:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6678&forum=4

Cheers

Jon
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Great thread.

I notice the second person on there said this;
the conspiracy sites on t'interweb are going crazy at the moment with flat earth stuff..

This chimed with me as I've spent the last two weeks watching Flat Earth videos on YouTube. It's made me realise that I actually have no idea why the earth is round and that I've just been taking it on face value all these years. I've been trying to get my head around the concepts and the mathematics, but it's a slow process. I've decided to withhold judgement about the shape of the earth until I'm better educated.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That is a degree of skepticism that is too extreme even for me.

Is such skepticism justifiable on AE grounds? Really? I think not.
Send private message
Jonm



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's made me realise that I actually have no idea why the earth is round


You're in Middlesbrough?

One of the best topographic locations to test it yourself will be the top of Brow Moor at about 54° 24′ 13″ N, 0° 31′ 06″ W. Curiously, you'll find a large round barrow at that location with tumuli leading down the hill.

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=29645
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
That is a degree of skepticism that is too extreme even for me.

I'm still fairly sure it's round xD
However, until I can prove it's round for myself I'm officially impartial. I have a lot of respect for some of the flat-earth guys - they throw up some odd anomalies and they're forcing me to think.

Also the history is quite interesting. Before the era of rockets and satellites the question was a lot more open-ended ..after all, the earth does seem flat. There's always this assumption that throughout history smart people (a la Eratosthenes) have just known it was round because it obviously is, but I'm not so sure about that.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Walbury Hill (51°21'.08' N 1.27'.57' W) is the highest point in south-east England. When lined up with Milk Hill (51°22'40' N, 1.51'.07' W) the line follows the Wansdyke, clearly an artificial feature, via Knap Hill, Martinsell Hill, Giant's Grave at Pewsey, i.e. a series named hills, often with trig points.

The second highest hill after Walbury is Leith Hill, 51°10'.34' N 0°22'.16'.70' W, the highest point on the east-west Pilgrim's Way (aka North Downs Way) between Worlesbury above the Severn Estuary at Weston-Super-Mare and Ramsgate on the Isle of Thanet. Leith Hill is almost on the exact same latitude as Stonehenge (51°10'.44' N), on the South rather than North downland route.

The highest point of the North downland route is Botley Hill which is on the prime meridian (51°16'.40' N, 0°00'.39'W), purely by happenstance if Wiki is to be believed.

By coincidence Botley Hill lies due south of the Greenwich Observatory, as the Prime Meridian of the world passes over the top of the hill, just to the west of the summit.

The summit lies at the edge of a water tower enclosure to the north of The Ridge, less than 1 km from the North Downs Way. As the highest point of the North Downs, it can view and be seen from the tallest points in Croydon, skyscrapers in London, and for example from Alexandra Palace, Stanmore Hill, Primrose Hill, Highgate and Hampstead across the opposite side of the Thames Basin.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
There's always this assumption that throughout history smart people (a la Eratosthenes) have just known it was round because it obviously is, but I'm not so sure about that.


And how would you explain the photographic evidence? Google Earth is part of the conspiracy?

Remember that intelligence is a trap. Intelligent people prefer complicated answers because intelligence is really only good for figuring out complicated stuff. Most of life is rather predictable by even the most middling intelligence. A very frustrating state of affairs for your average genius. This is why conspiracy theorists tend to invariably be of above-average intelligence.

Moreover, knowledge of your subject only arms you with better arguments for your chosen paradigm. This is why Applied Epistemologists reject the whole notion of arguing from evidence. We argue from principle.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is why Applied Epistemologists reject the whole notion of arguing from evidence.

I prefer to say that AE-ists employ the jujitsu principle of using the evidence to overthrow the current paradigm.

We argue from principle.

Yes, we use the principle to establish notionally the new paradigm. If it is valid the evidence is then found to be available for jujitsu purposes.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The problem though is that conspiracy theorists are also arguing from principle and also find no difficulty in acquiring sufficient evidence to overwhelm orthodoxy. In both cases, AE-ists and conspiracists, orthodoxy only has to decline to be overwhelmed in order to win. Which it does every time!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Evidence permits any interpretation. The more you know, the less likely you are to change your mind. Only principles (like Occam's Razor) have any hope of over-turning an established paradigm. The strength of Applied Epistemology lies in the principles it lays down---elucidations of the scientific method---and its demonstration that these principles are applicable regardless of the discipline or subject of study.

Except when it isn't...
  • The truth is always simple.
  • The truth is always obvious.
  • What is, is what was.
  • Same effect, same cause.
  • There is only ever one cause.
  • There are no special cases.
  • Every paradigm is false.
  • Nothing ever gets worse.
These rules (and others) are, for the most part, distillations of one injunction: Assume the probable, except where the improbable is necessary..

In AE, the value of evidence is limited to establishing the necessity of the otherwise improbable. If such evidence cannot be found, what is probable is assumed, regardless of what alternative might also be consistent with the facts.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
N R Scott wrote:
There's always this assumption that throughout history smart people (a la Eratosthenes) have just known it was round because it obviously is, but I'm not so sure about that.


And how would you explain the photographic evidence? Google Earth is part of the conspiracy?

Sorry, I wasn't too clear here. I was trying to say I wasn't too sure about the history of people knowing the earth was round. I'm fairly sure it is round - although I'm very much open to the idea of it not being. I think historically most people probably believed it was flat up until very, very recently.

It's like doing a jigsaw. Living in the Space Age with NASA pictures et al we can see the picture on the box. We know where everything's supposed to go. Ancient minds didn't have that luxury. Once you put yourself in that position and go back to year dot, you get a different view of history. Flat Earth Theory is a useful thought experiment if nothing else. If I was teacher this would be my first lesson.

Going back to this question though;

And how would you explain the photographic evidence? Google Earth is part of the conspiracy?

I wouldn't explain it. I'd just accept I have unknowns and conflicting data and get on with things. I'm comfortable with the ambiguity. I'm happy to believe that 1066 both did and didn't happen. Or that Henry VIII both did and didn't exist. In my head things are just more or less likely.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
This is why conspiracy theorists tend to invariably be of above-average intelligence.

This isn't surprising and tells us that interest in conspiracy theories is probably a healthy and useful thing. Newton was an alchemist and a bible-nut. Leonhard Euler and Edmund Halley believed in a Hollow Earth. Alfred Russell Wallace was a spiritualist. I think most of the smart-arses from history could be labelled conspiracy wackos on some level.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
I'm comfortable with the ambiguity. I'm happy to believe that 1066 both did and didn't happen. Or that Henry VIII both did and didn't exist.


That is precisely my own state of mind! It's really quite amazing. I feel I inhabit multiple universes.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
That is precisely my own state of mind! It's really quite amazing. I feel I inhabit multiple universes.

I've been thinking about this a lot actually and about how someone would write a book or share their ideas if they have this mindset and aren't 100% certain about things.

For example, take revisionist books about Jesus. One guy writes a book about how Jesus was Dionysus - great book, great ideas, but they then spend the rest of their life being the Jesus was Dionysus guy, defending their theory against all others and ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with it. Another guy writes a book stating Jesus married Mary Magdalene - again great book, great ideas, lots of new stuff brought to the table, but once again they get locked into that one idea and spend the rest of their lives having to defend it.

If I ever wrote a book I'd like to avoid that. I rather say "here's some interesting stuff, this is what I'm thinking at the moment, this is why, this is maybe a more likely explanation of things, but.." Essentially to write with the awareness that there aren't any definitive answers, only more likely ones.

Maybe even try to encourage the reader to take a multi-track view of history (or whatever topic it may be) themselves.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You should write a book on the subject.

How about "Zen and the Art of Revisionist Theories"?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next

Jump to:  
Page 18 of 19

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group