You keep mentioning other topics: space program, speculative astrophysics
On these subjects I agree with you to an extent. There's a lot of disinfo.
But let's just focus on the one question: whether or not the Earth is a globe. To answer that, we don't need to rely on NASA or speculative astrophysics
Btw, the way you keep shifting tracks to NASA etc. reminds me of the Rob and Trish interview. All Alex wanted to do was talk about the sea level change in Miami, but Trish and Rob always brought it back to polar bears and flooding.
Dude, don't compare me to those two jaded idiots. Granted, I respect their book career, but they spew exactly what the main stream media wants them to spew. Likewise, if you think the Earth is a globe, you are are spewing exactly what the main stream media wants you to spew. Turn on the TV and watch how nearly every network has some rendition of a globe before they program you. Does that prove the earth is flat or a globe, no it doesn't, but it does show that "globe" is an agenda. That being said, could the earth be a globe? - Or could it be flat? To me, this debate is fucking obviously a "democrat vs. republican" kind of nonsense.
Like I mentioned before, if you study flight patterns and emergency stops, the globe earth makes no sense. Also, if you study how rivers flow across supposed enormous curvatures over long distances, then the globe observation makes no sense. Furthermore, if you even look into Antarctica a little bit, the globe model makes little to no sense. Does a flat model supersede it? I don't think so. Both models have serious flaws in them, but I think the flat earth model that you don't read about from "the flat earth society" is more realistic than the globe model as far as our everyday lives operate. Just a straight up model that we can demonstrate: how the hell is Kansas flatter than a pancake? Apply the curvature theory to Kansas. It doesn't work! Does that mean Kansas is a huge plateau? Maybe it is, but we would have to demonstrate the drop off with the adjacent states. Also, when you listen to all these talking heads for science, they are constantly saying contradictory shit.
For example, Neil Degras Tyson says, in one science channel episode, that the earth would be more perfect than the perfect marble, and smoother, by comparison of contrast in size. Later, this idiot is saying the earth is pear shaped?!? Which is it? A fucking pear is nothing like a perfectly shaped marble. Go test this theory out, go try to shoot pears instead of marbles!
Do I believe in a demonstrable, physical reality? Fuck yes, I do! Do you believe in a demonstrable, physical reality? What I am telling you, and yes, this will be hard to swallow, is that there is absolutely no definitive proof that our earth is a globe, whatsoever at all. I know, people that believe the globe will tell you stupid shit like "you believe in ultra pragmatism." Nevertheless, their belief in a globe is an absolute faith altogether. It is a media based faith. Our reality, through Newtonian physics, contradicts itself in a "globe world."
How would I attempt to reconcile the globe theory with reality? As a particle physicist, I would say that the properties of enormous physical bodies have some "spooky action." Maybe I would call that spooky action gravity and draw all kinds of other baseless conclusion upon that sand castle in the sky. Next, your shit theory is running out, so you have to talk about "dark matter." Didn't these assholes do this with things at a micro level, as well? - Double slit theory, so forth?
Finally, we reach this base level of science whereas we think that certain scientists, such as Dean Radin, have some kind of special insight into reality. Spiritualists put so much faith into this guy, and then he gets on Skeptiko and basically declares, "I am a transhumanist!"
I kind of see a rubber band effect going on with this "science" vs "religion" phenomenon. On one hand, you see all these fucking religious people pulling a luddite response to anything technical. To me, that itself is a kind of retardation. On the other hand, you have all of these science people denying that anything from God exists, yet they are practicing all this spirit cooking kind of bullshit. I think that the disconnect is that we are failing to realize that God is not only in ourselves, but in everything else. I think the mistake is to assume that we can become the God that created all this shit. Also, I think it is a mistake to fall into any particular system, whether it is one of belief or disbelief. Also, I think it is idiocy to say things like "It is all about the light."
Darkness has a place in our reality, and that doesn't make it bad. Yes, light is great, but it is also about darkness. Furthermore, darkness does not mean diabolical human actions. Darkness is the doorway to your inner light, and likewise, your inner light has a lot of darkness around it.
By the way....love you brother, and thanks for the response.
