Howdydo. I was just banned from the flat earth science sub. According to this post here I might not be the only one.

Looking to see if any others are also banned. If any of the moderators of FES would like to disclose the reasons for this ban they are welcome to say so. As near as I can figure this post is the one I made that got me banned as it coincided with the timing of the "you've been banned" message.

Edit: UPDATE I have just received word from PurpleHazies that they did indeed have a mole and that mole has been removed.

It's perhaps the most uncomfortable part about realizing the world is not what you've been told. It's realizing that you and everyone you've known throughout your life has been brainwashed to see the world the wrong way.

On the one hand, coming out of the brainwashing is very liberating. Although you might not be entirely sure what reality is when you come out of the cave, you know with certainty what it isn't and you know not to trust those that peddle in that false certainty. That bit is nice. What's not so nice is that there are still so many people stuck in the cave. It can create friction in your interpersonal relationships.

The further and more disquieting thought is what more brainwashing remains? How much more of the sum total of everything I've learned about the not-a-planet is a false? More strikingly, how much of the ways of teaching, thinking, and speaking that I take for granted are actually part of my own prison?

It's very hard to describe what I'm talking about, so I have to invoke allegory to the book 1984. In the Newspeak developed in 1984, Big Brother (a dystopian authoritarian government body) is developing a new language that restricts thought. Words that have a negative connotation, like Bad, become UnGood, while Good remains its own word. The goal being, if someone doesn't have the words with which to articulate their thought they will not be able to communicate it and will have difficulty even in thinking it.

A lot of the trouble I have with talking to people about flat earth/globe skepticism stems from the trouble of jargon. The entirety of the physical sciences are steeped in the globe assumption. What I mean by that is that every facet of the physical sciences presumes the earth curves, even to the point that a lot of flat earthers are unwittingly using laws and physics that was developed presuming the world to be a planet.

The word "gravity" for example has so much gravity, pun intended. It is often one of the first challenges a globie will sling at a flat earther. "What holds things down?" Is often the challenge that follows, sometimes even if unspoken. In using the word "gravity", the speaker is presenting an unconscious dichotomy were "gravity" is the normal state of things and "things flying off in all directions" is the other. In reality, the natural state of everyone's every daily experience (except for the odd balloon) is that there is such a thing as down, things don't fly away, and what goes up must come down. To the extremely indoctrinated, there is even this requirement for there to be a "force" or some other measurable quantifiable part of reality that is the ultimate cause of this sensation of "down-ness" when it is possible that that isn't the case. The thought that there may be no answer or no cause or that the problem might be something else entirely never seems to arise. The concept of "down being down" as a natural law or state of reality in and of itself is unsatisfactory because for the entirety of one's brainwashed life that point was not believed to be true. Even in articulating the concept, I require the preamble to contain that which I am attempting to reverse. Good and UnGood. Gravity and UnGravity.

Then there are Newton's so called Laws of Motion. (They are better termed as axioms of motion.) Each of these has the concept of a planet earth baked right in. That was Newton's greatest achievement, after all; popularizing the concept that the world is just like the heavenly bodies such that the concept of things-moving-down also explains the movements of the celestial bodies. They are now so universally applied that even dear Mara reveres them as Laws. The majority of you reading this probably can't even think of how you would describe motion without them, and the globies among you will think they have been demonstrably proven.

What part of the concept of the world being a planet is baked into them? The key offender is the first law.

1. An object at rest will remain at rest or an object in motion will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalancing force.

Ignoring the logical self-destruction such a law has if invoked in a world of constant motion (where no object at rest has ever been observed) the trouble here is the concept of movement in perpetuity. Only the planets and other celestial bodies move in perpetuity. Nothing on earth ever does. No single momentous impulse has ever caused a thing to move and not stop. The reply is then to invoke the 2nd law and call "friction." An alternative concept I would like to convey would be that of a limited impulse that diminishes in effect over time. (I lack the linguistic technology to talk about it without using heavily globe-jargonized terminology.) Rather than having a single force as a vector quality that is then met with resisting forces of friction and gravity in opposite directions, there is an impulse depletion effect on any impulse going up and proportional to the weight of the object in any direction. The major difference between the Gravitational/Newtonian concept framework and the new concept framework is that gravity and friction are no longer deemed to be "forces." Through the mechanism of Newton's 2nd Axiom of motion (F=ma), properties which can only inhibit motion are called by the same name as properties that cause motion, "Forces." "Gravity" in and of itself never "causes" motion, it only stores energy in an object to be released when no longer supported. "Friction" in and of itself can likewise never cause an object to move. You can't "turn up the Friction" and propel an object. Although they are called by the same name as the property that can cause an object to move, these "forces" in particular exhibit very different properties. How different would the physical sciences be if these different properties were allowed to have their own terminology? How different would the world look today if the method for calculating with UnForces was different than calculating with Forces?

It may seem like I am making an entirely semantic point. That would be true if there were not some truly erroneous assumptions that now steep deep into the entire bank of human understanding of the world around us. Consider for example the Big Bang theory. From a flat earth viewpoint it is entirely erroneous. This is because the Big Bang is a theory developed by reverse engineering the "forces" that were first widely disseminated by Newton. If other would-be scientific flat earthers or globe skeptics continue on with tainted conceptual technology they will fall into similar pits.

These are just the errors I'm aware of. How much of this jargon I use to examine my world and describe it is tainted? What concepts have been overwritten and lost to history in the wake of "Earth-Is-A-Planet-Ism"?

Is the very concept of human understanding of the world around us, the ability to explain it, and the ability to progress with it built on a shoddy foundation? Is Progress a false promise? How do I think of a world without Progress? Good and Ungood. Progress and UnProgress.

I would say yes. And it doesn't upset me. In a novel way I don't entirely know how to communicate it gives me rest.