Xref: utzoo talk.religion.newage:1283 alt.flame:1025
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!rutgers!gatech!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!csun!csuchico!ronald
From: ronald@csuchico.EDU (Ronald Cole)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Platygaeanism
Summary: More entropy of information
Keywords: Platygeanism & sputtering flambe
Message-ID: <995@csuchico.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 87 20:56:35 GMT
References: <9901@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: ronald@csuchico.edu (Ronald Cole, faculty)
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 72

In article <9901@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) writes:
>The net.debate on platygaeanism seems to have 3 sides.  Platygeanism,
>rational round-earthism, and irrational hysterical round-earthism. I
>propose to get rid of this last group by flaming them out.
>Consider a posting by Ronald Cole.  I wrote
>>>MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY DOES NOT IMPLY TRUTH.
>He replied
>>Then what does it imply?
>Can this be serious?

this is a flame?  I should've gotten you a gift certificate good for 1
free flaming lesson from that Smith guy in Berserkely, but I'm too cheap.
Go get a copy of the Flamer's Bible; merry Christmas anyway.

>                     He further wrote
>>Can you explain why matter has a nasty tendency to assume a spherical shape
>>when in free fall?  Did a flat raindrop hit you on your flat head?
>!?!?!?!?  This is really strange.  Is he saying that the earth is round
>for the same reason that water droplet is rounded? (Actually a falling
>raindrop has a long attenuated tail due to air resistance.)  That surface
>tension forces the earth into a round shape? Or that water droplets 
>exemplify the "natural roundness" of nature, the bane of weight-watchers
>everywhere? :-) :-)  You should be sure you understand both the theories
>you are attacking and those that you support before posting articles to
>the net. Evidently Ronald Cole understands neither. (Cheer up, Ronald,
>ignorance can be cured! :-) )

The latter half of my my outburst was a poor attempt at a "flat-lander" joke.
I am saying the first part of the latter of your assumptions; a sphere is the
shape assumed by nature in order to maximize the ratio of volume to surface
area in the absence of external forces, obviously the force of surface tension
in a falling drop of water is greater than the forces due to air resistance.
For the Earth, gravity is the dominant force.  What new (unknown) force keeps
nature from whacking the Earth with this double-whammy?  I was hoping that
you would clue me into something I might be missing regarding platygaeanism;
however, it appears that this posting one again lacks the requisite
information, increasing the entropy of information on the net.  But then
again, isn't that what this news group is for?  ;^}

In this day of high technology, I find it difficult to believe that the earth
is flat.  Is there some kind of magical force that keeps us from flying
to its edges and observing them?  Are the edges bounded by earth or ocean?
If by ocean, then what keeps the oceans from pouring themselves into the
ether like an overfilled bathtub, or is the Earth actually _like_ a bathtub
(concave instead of flat)?  If there are no edges, then is the earth an
infinite plane?  How thick is this slab of Earth?  Arrrgh!  Too many new
problems to deal with!  Personally, Occam's razor gives _me_ a better shave.

[ dweebery about Communists, Secular Humanists, etc... mercifully deleted ]
>This sort of nonsense has no place in a rational and honest discussion.
>So why don't those who understand nothing of either platygaeanism or
>round-earthism, and those who wish to advance their cause by attacking
>statements that I have *not* made, either reform themselves or stay out
>of the discussion. Thanx.
>By the way, Ronald, I don't mean to single you out too much, you were just
>a handy example. Many others would have served as well.  And don't think
>I think you're a jerk in general. Everyone occassionally shoots his mouth
>off about things he knows nothing about. Peace.

Maybe I just hit closer to the mark than the others.  Why you singled _me_
out to flame about the "irrational hysterical" ravings of others doesn't
make much sense.  Otherwise, in attributing the ravings of others to me,
_you_ have committed the faux pas of "attacking statements that I have *not*
made".  Since this sputtering flame doesn't deserve to continue in this group
and I don't read talk.religion.newage.closed-mind, let's take it to Email.
Ok by U?

-- 
Ronald Cole				| uucp:     ihnp4!csun!csuchico!ronald
AT&T 3B5 System Manager			| PhoneNet: ronald@csuchico.edu
California State University, Chico	| voice     (916) 895-4635
	"... and if you don't like it, you must lump it." -Joseph Smith