The physics of it all

Hello

I was thinking (I know a rare time in my life and a remarkable splodge on my calendar), if I was taught in my school (that's the normal place) the building blocks of my paradigm (how my universe is) and I was the one who pieced it all together (a clever trick by my teachers, making me think and link) then what value/values could I contribute by informing anyone who was even vaguely interested, my thought processes on the subject.

The history of when and where (I tend to link and time stamp my memories by remembering the situation that they occurred in, for instance, I remember that I was driving over the Pennines when I heard, on the radio, that Google had bought YouTube, I was on a course at the time therefore I timestamped it at the time of that particular course and it was November 2006, incidentally about the same time as Amy Winehouse releasing Rehab, I looked it up, just now, and I'm correct, I find this useful). Anyhow, I remember going to stay at my Grandparents when I was eleven, my Grandfather seemed to derive enjoyment from debate, he was always inquiring as to my state of education, and always trying to pick flaws in my argument. One of the discussions that we ended up having, was, after I had asserted that our thought process were just a result of electrical impulses. What happens when we die?
I asserted that the switch goes off, (what I would consider now as a no power state) blackness!
I was eleven. I have only recently recalled the conversation, and only recently reviewed it in its entirety (I know that we do lie to ourselves when we remember things, so I was trying my best to recall his reactions) I do recall him questioning my statement with a tinge of incredulity in his voice, wether it was against his paradigm or my youthfulness that caused this, I shall never know, nor will I know what exactly his belief systems led him to believe what happened when you die.
My point is this, I know that was the moment I realised what I believed.

So starting with the idea that I don't know how things work, and that I would like to. I was off on a journey that would lead to my understanding (I'm perfectly aware that my model probably has flaws and could do with being tweaked, or even that I could be 100% wrong)
Back to the physics thing, having been encouraged to perform the Cavendish experiment:-

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_cavendish_experiment.htm

For a visual of it and a bit of a hint as to the character of the man himself:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdiUoKa9Nw

In my head, I could imagine that there were lots of floating bits of rock hanging round doing nothing, two rocks would be mutually attracted (see the links above for details) and they would come together, this would make them doubly attractive to other rocks/small specks of matter and so the process would continue until you have a (what we would consider) a massive amount of matter (still attracting more 'Stuff'.
In the meantime we were taught about types of energy:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8EEnMwkmZk

OK so now we are accumulating a large amount of matter which, as it flies in, is imparting its energy to the main mass as it joins it (my personal view of a part of how the earth's core could be so hot) add to that the pressure of all the extra bits that have joined the first two rocks all trying to join the centre of mass and we are having a wonderful time getting to get a very simplified version of how our planet was formed.
why would it be spherical? See below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF8aQHwcKN0


Same effect but on a massive scale.

OK that is just the start of what leads me to believe what I believe, but I hope that it demonstrated how the building blocks go together and the foundation of my Paradigm. I realise that you have to be open to the initial premises (even though you go back and prove them to yourself repeatedly), I am also aware that we are not all wired the same way, so we all have a different baseline of understanding, and the way we come to realise our thought processes and learning paths differ from person to person (please can I have a Matrix style input port installed).

What's my point? I am trying to be sympathetic to the people who are struggling to get a grip on what the planet they are existing on is about and how it works, some people do not want to admit that they are 'specks in space' as it leads them to believe that they are not special, but we are special and denying reality will not empower you to contribute to the program (Humanity 1.0) in fact it becomes a little chunk of Malware (Religion 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 also known as Yaweh 1, 2 and 3). Now if you are religious and are offended by that last statement, it was an attempt at humour, and should be treated as such, (Mathew 5.38).

Having watched some of the more thoughtful questions posed by flat earth proponents, one of them posed the question about craters on the moon always looking like they were caused by a perpendicular strike from Meteor/asteroid objects, that actually caused me to think about it and use their 'research' method YouTube.

I went to YouTube and typed in 'how do we explain circular craters on the moon', (30 seconds of my time, I'm a slow typist) and clicked on the top link, 11 minutes 32 seconds later, I had a very commendable explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCGWGJOUjHY&t=555s

What is wrong with that? I found the explanation perfectly rational and I watched a microscopic version of it happening and a video of it happening to the moon. OK thinks I, why would I not believe it? The only answer to that question that I could come up with is if I had enough of an agenda that would make me unwilling to accept it, even then would I be prepared to find some form of experiment (repeatable and convincing) that would prove/disprove it? (Cognitive bias) I find that many of the Flat Earth community who are sufficiently motivated to produce online content would more than likely not seek a reliable solution to this (due to it being contrary to their firmly held beliefs or liable to disrupt a cash flow from their online content (I suspect the latter is more prominent))

Hugs

Once upon a time on a Flat Earth

Eyup
Yes, my blog has been entirely neglected for ages, I know.
However, in my armchair explorer mode I have been watching lots of youtube stuff and have become jawdroppingly stunned at how a certain concept has gone from being mocked, to being more mainstream and widely mocked.
"What are you on about?" I hear, floating on the aether (Michelson and Morley experiment).
By my last reference, you might have gathered that the "Flat Earth" concept is the main target of my pondering.

OK, at school (many years ago) I was taught (and I studied) Physics, as I remember, we (the class) were asked to perform, or were demonstrated, certain experiments, that gave us an understanding of our environment/world/existence. We were shown these (repeatable) lessons in a logical pragmatic order that gave us the tools to build our own paradigm and it gave me the ability to analyse and develop my own understanding of physical conundrums as they presented themselves in my work and life. Not all of my conclusions have been correct and I readily accept that my logic can be flawed, my main method (unless I am being taught) is to try to develop an explanation of my own and then confirm it by looking it up. Works well for me.

What occurs to me, when I am watching some of the more entertaining videos produced by proponents of the planer existence, is that they seem to fall into one of three categories:-

   1: The oblate spheroid idea is fed to you by one or more agencies that have a vested interest in keeping the general populous ignorant.
This includes the conspiracy theorists (NASA, CIA and Illuminate (et al) all have an agenda to keep us from discovering..... err, something), Bible apologists (it says that the earth is flat in the bible, the bible is the word of God therefore if the world is not flat then you are saying that the word of God isn't true........ARRRRRRGH!!!! (head explosion)). 
   2: Non conceptual crowd, the type who can't think outside of the box (literally), presenting the inability to realise that if you are travelling at a constant speed then you do not feel it, we only feel changes in speed (more commonly known as acceleration), or the inability to realise the massive scale of things, (reference, the curvature of the earth, gravity or the distance to the sun).
   3:  The arseholes that couldn't give a shit about reality, as long as category 2 style muggins subscribe to their channels on youtube. (I'm also including some that might be doing it as a "bit of a laugh").

In respect to Cat 1 types, I do remember being a tad susceptible to Arthur C Clark style books when I was about fourteen (and have read some since but without my blind acceptance gland engaged) and to be honest, if you state every possible outcome of a situation, when the outcome is realised, you will have been correct (once). Conversely, if you latch on to every hair brained conspiracy theory, one of them might be correct (WARNING: that doesn't prove you right, it is just means that you threw the dice often enough), I'm going to go with the infinite amount of monkeys analogy here.
As for the Bible saying that the earth is flat (therefore it must be) are we about to reference a book that was cherry picked from Latin into sixteenth century English, in turn the Latin version that was cherry picked from Ancient Greek (with a smattering of Hebrew) derived from recounted tales spoken in Aramaic (or different versions of the above depending on whose narrative you deploy)? Some of the defenders of this stance are young earth creationists who are petrified of anything that could shake their faith or even put a slight dent in their "Truth Armour" (If you honestly believe in God, then fair play to you, but I don't see how, proving that the world is flat, would gain you any smarty points when it comes to checkout time, in fact, if you put yourself in his shoes, who would you rather be surrounded by in the afterlife? A bunch of simpering "yes" men or people who would provide scintillating conversation for the remainder of eternity? (Another topic at a later date)).

Cat 2: The problem with this crowd is Dunning Kruger Effect, it's not a new concept, Messrs Dunning and Kruger have defined it. In layman's terms it is being too stupid to realise that you are stupid, guess what! We all suffer from it to a degree, unfortunately, some people cannot acknowledge this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E 

This is worrying (a touch of introspection required) and begs the question "Am I qualified to be writing this" but should also raise the question (to be asked of the YouTube content producers) "Am I setting myself up for a bloody good mocking?"
In answer to the last one, then, if your content is in opposition to experts that have been peer reviewed and their opinions and theories have stood the test of scientific method and are generally accepted, then YES! You might actually wish to gain an understanding of what they are trying to convey, as opposed to calling them idiots or "debunking" their well established theories. I'm not saying that everyone should blindly accept the theories, and questioning given information is a healthy way of approaching life, but, as with most ideas, to deny the veracity of the idea without presenting a plausible alternative proof to support the denial is five year old style arguing and will probably expose your ignorance (a prelude to mockery).

Cat 3: If I were a conspiracy fan I would be inclined to say that some of these people were milking the gullible and some of them were in league with the content providers for the juxtapositional (how do you like those fruit from the tree of knowledge?) content. Whereas I applaud the production of well presented, simplified and understandable content with the intent of education (some of which I have found useful) and it can be classed as peer reviewed (very loosely, and you then have to consider the level of the peer that is reviewing it) it is, nullified by shoddily researched and basically pseudoscience based claptrap that deserves to be derided and mocked (however, the idiots claiming that they are "woke" will do the counterpoint "debunking" of the more pertinent content).

So, do we need a license for social media? Are we suffering from free speech overload?

(please say yes)