Modern science consists of "hypothesis' that have yet to be falsified". No real scientist will tell you what the universal truth is. They will tell you what the evidence suggests is likely
Thats exactly what I just said Flame. And one of the Hypotheseis' that was abandond was that the world was flat. It just became more likly that the world was a globe. It cannot be proven so.But you quote from me isnt a statement, its a noun. I agree with you totaly, its not ben since the middle of the 16th century that science neeed things to be proven to be true for them to be excepted as so. Exactly at the time that it Europe decided to accept the GLobe earth model over the Flat earth model.
You are attacking me, by saying, HAHA H&K science dosent deal with true or false anymore, which is just what I am saying. I am saying that because sceince works that way, it is somtimes impossible to use sceince to prove something true.
I have put forward the Hypothesis that the world could be flat. I have exlained how with a differing metric and light curveing away form the earth, all observational evienence can go either way. You seem to have taken this to mean that I am trying to prove that the earth is flat. I am not, because within moderen science we accept that somethings are impossible to prove for "Science hasn't been logic that is true or false, since the middle of the 16th century."
Translation.
Flame is saying. Look H&K stop it. Sceince since the middle of the 16th century doesnt work on what is true or false.
And I am repling,
Then agree with me, cos as sceince since the middle of the 16th century doesnt work on what is true or false, it is at the least possible that it cannot prove that the earth is a globe
And yes Flame I do know what science is, can you not see that it isnt I who is holding to a "Truth", but rather I who am saying there is no truth as to what shape the earth is. I can tell you what the evidence suggests is likely, which is a Globe, but that it could also be a plane. (And please note again, I am only saying it cannot be proven to be a globe, I am not saying it is a Plane)
Because someone mentioned that the universe works in 4D... X,Y,Z and Time
So if the universe is currently in four dimensions, how can objects in the universe work on a 2D plane only?
Who said that the plane was only in 2d? In one of the examples there is "Under the surface", and nearly all the posts delt with "Light above the surface"So if the universe is currently in four dimensions, how can objects in the universe work on a 2D plane only?
And the time comment is just a relevent (or not) to a plane earth and a globe earth.
People seem to have an underlying belief that science is based on hard solid Facts and Truths.
Its not, its based on self supporting Hypothesis that are sustainable over a long period of critism and analysis, and science lets you go back and "edit" the gospels.
Somethings in science cannot be proven to be so, because thats not how science works anymore. Religion on the otherhand doesnt have the period of critism and analysis. (or if it did it was alot longer ago), and hardly ever lets you go back and chance some of the underlying permises.
The "Earth as a Globe" is an example of something that was accepted as the most likly answer because it was the simplest solution. (But not the only solution). Any Flat solution had to have at a minimum curveing light, and either an "edge" or an infinate plane which to be true would need a variable metric. (Cos we could see that there wasnt an edge and that it wasnt infinate).
They didnt prove that ot was a Globe, it was just an easyer solution to the problem. But because of the way science works in most peoples minds this ment "The earth is A Globe, we can prove it", whereas all it really ment was "The earth is a Globe, cos its the most likly answer"