[Curious Squirrel]

This has been bugging me for a while. I'm just not seeing how the case for a flat Earth is any stronger than that of a round Earth. Both appear to rely almost completely upon the work of other people, or questionable experiments. Just what is the actual case for a FE?

"It looks flat"
I see this a fair bit, although it appears to be both the weakest plea and a fall back for some. Not only is this highly subjective (I look out my window and it appears anything but flat; welcome to hill country) but the given math for a round Earth means simply looking flat doesn't rule that out. It comes down to a sort of 'debate' between which one feels is simpler. A sphere, or a flat surface. While a sphere might be mathematically simpler, our daily lives seem to suggest flat is simpler at times. Either way, this doesn't seem all that universally compelling.

"ENaG/Bedford Level"
Here is where I'm personally starting to run into some problems. Not only was this experiment at a time before images could really be done to properly capture everything, but the location has produced a fairly wide array of results from different people, including one using it to conclude the Earth is concave! But really, why should we trust ENaG any more than any other literature? Has any member of the Society actually recreated the experiments described herein? If you have not, how can you trust them? Why are these experiments trusted more than others? It seems these should be treated with the same amount of caution and skepticism as any other set of experiments, but they don't seem to be.

"The Bishop Experiment"
This is an interesting one. I've come across a fair number of threads about this one as I've been back browsing, and there are a disturbing number of things not quite holding up to close scrutiny. Pictures have been shown, but many don't match what has been pointed out, and there's the issue of a much closer beach visible from the same location. This also unfortunately suffers from the problems pervasive to a number of similar experiments, in that the air over water is in a near constant state of flux, and cannot truly be measured for a proper control. An issue for much of ENaG as well. This one seems like it could be a useful tool, but it seems to need better documentation.

"Zetetic Cosmogony"
Been reading some of this recently, as it too is listed under 'experimental evidence' on the Wiki here. I haven't seen much in the way of experiments in this book at present, merely quoting the words of others. Which once again raises the question of why we should believe both their words, and the conclusions being drawn about them. If there's something more tangible in here, I would be appreciative if someone could point me to it. But I see much of the same statements as ENaG makes mirrored, nearly all without even an apparent attempt to document showing them, unlike ENaG.

"Lady Blount"
Here is stated to be a close repeat of the 'Bedford Level' experiment. The wiki calls this 'one of the first to peer review' that bit of work. The description provided however seems wholly unsatisfactory. We are told about a sheet seen from one end of the canal at the other. That the sheet is even seen reflecting in the water. But we don't know the height of the sheet, nor do we know how much was seen. The claim is that there was a picture taken, but this is not provided on the wiki. This appears to be it, but it too isn't particularly satisfactory. Once again we are left with trusting the words of another.

Based on all of this, I have to ask one small question. What makes any of these 'better' than the sources for a globe Earth? Every one is at best a written personal account with no useful visual evidence. Even The Bishop Experiment has issues with both it's documentation, and evidence. Simply trusting these sources seems the same as trusting the sources which describe the Earth as round. Am I missing something? The zetetic approach here, to me, would say that one cannot be sure of the shape of the Earth. That's obviously not a very compelling conclusion, and if I have missed something or you feel I'm misrepresenting something I would encourage leading me in the correct direction. I've attempted to be as neutral as possible in my observations and statements here, but I'm only human.

[xenotolerance]

IMO, it's like a religious belief, and it gets tied up in a believer's identity. One does not just believe in a flat Earth, they become a flat Earth believer. One tenet is thinking of the belief as free-thinking rationality without actually engaging in same as far as the Earth's shape is concerned. This is also consistent with refusal to acknowledge errors or contradictions in the theory, and it is further reflected in the projection of their debate opponents as 'round Earth believers' who accept the indoctrination of society uncritically. See also the double standard in accepting dubious 19th century experiments over, say, CERN. Or, you know, weather balloons with cameras that refute flat Earth cosmology.

In the ancestral environment there were no abstract disciplines with vast bodies of carefully gathered evidence generalized into elegant theories transmitted by written books whose conclusions are a hundred inferential steps removed from universally shared background premises.

In the ancestral environment, anyone who says something with no obvious support, is a liar or an idiot.  You're not likely to think, "Hey, maybe this guy has well-supported background knowledge that no one in my band has even heard of," because it was a reliable invariant of the ancestral environment that this didn't happen.

Conversely, if you say something blatantly obvious and the other person doesn't see it, they're the idiot, or they're being deliberately obstinate to annoy you.

And to top it off, if someone says something with no obvious support and expects you to believe it - acting all indignant when you don't - then they must be crazy.

Part of the problem with debating about flat Earth belief is that the belief disallows reference to most of modern science. Fuckin, gravity is questioned. So flat Earth believers are way, way separated in terms of inferential steps.

[Tom Bishop]

Flat Earth persists because, even if you do not believe a word of the experiments and literature, it really boils down to a matter of empirical vs non-empirical. Everything for a Round Earth requires appeals to authority and leaps of assumption.

A Round Earth is questionable, and its authorities doubly so, and that is its downfall.

[xenotolerance]

No, it doesn't.

[Curious Squirrel]

Flat Earth persists because, even if you do not believe a word of the experiments and literature, it really boils down to a matter of empirical vs non-empirical. Everything for a Round Earth requires appeals to authority and leaps of assumption.

A Round Earth is questionable, and its authorities doubly so, and that is its downfall.

Sunsets. No appeal to authority, observable in all types of weather, FE requires fundamental math to be wrong to actually work, or rely on a gross misunderstanding of how said math works. The only "empirical" observation that I've ever seen given is "well it looks flat" and I covered how poor that is. Your case is no stronger than you claim REs to be.

[devils advocate]

Flat Earth persists because, even if you do not believe a word of the experiments and literature, it really boils down to a matter of empirical vs non-empirical. Everything for a Round Earth requires appeals to authority and leaps of assumption.

A Round Earth is questionable, and its authorities doubly so, and that is its downfall.

I cannot believe I am reading this Tom!

1) Leaps of assumption- errrrrr the entire basis of flat earth are leaps of assumption; celestial gears moving the moon and sun, size/distance of moon and sun, no map or distances on earth, universal acceleration v gravity or "other" theories, path of photons at sunset the list goes on, and on, and on

2) Round earth is questionable - errrrrrrrrr in a universe of spherical planets/moons/stars you think a FLAT planet is the one that makes more sense?

3) Empirical v Non-empiracal - Sunsets. I'm just going to leave it there until you get round to explaining the question of how the photons travel. Shadow of the earth on the moon being round.

Tom I am beginning to suspect that you no more believe the earth to be flat than I. Your answers and general style of debate here more and more sound like those of someone who just like to debate, loves to argue and enjoys winding people up. This subject certainly lends itself perfectly to people who do like to debate. I put it out there Tom; I believe you are a round earther!

 

[Pete Svarrior]

universal acceleration v gravity or "other" theories

Gravitation as we "know" it has been soundly disproved, by people who think the Earth is round, no less.

2) Round earth is questionable - errrrrrrrrr in a universe of spherical planets/moons/stars you think a FLAT planet is the one that makes more sense?

We also live in a universe with only one (known) celestial body that harbours intelligent (or even sentient) life. Clearly, animals must not exist on Earth, because they don't exist on any other celestial body.

3) Empirical v Non-empiracal - Sunsets. I'm just going to leave it there until you get round to explaining the question of how the photons travel.

Sunsets are well-understood within FET. The "path of photon" meme really doesn't affect it. It's just another thing that 3DG blabbered mindlessly, and the few people who (for some bizarre reason) respect him chose to parrot. There's nothing to it.

If 3DG said it then it shouldn't 'awt to be thought about! (because it's probably as wrong as mistaking Texas for Japan, or thinking that a sine wave only has one local maximum)

Shadow of the earth on the moon being round.

A leap of assumption. How did you establish that what you're seeing is the shadow of the Earth? And how did you establish that a circular shadow must have been cast by a sphere and not (for example) a cyllinder, a coin, a half-sphere, or a guac bowl?

[StinkyOne]

Gravitation as we "know" it has been soundly disproved, by people who think the Earth is round, no less.

Please do enlighten us. Due to the variations in gravitation strength on Earth, it is very clear that 'Universal Acceleration' is not the source of gravitation.

Sunsets are well-understood within FET. The "path of photon" meme really doesn't affect it. It's just another thing that 3DG blabbered mindlessly, and the few people who (for some bizarre reason) respect him chose to parrot. There's nothing to it.

Again, please enlighten us. You may like to think sunset is well proven in FET, but it really isn't. You're just 100% wrong. Misusing perspective to cover up your failed theory's obvious faults is laughable. It's right up there with 'Celestial Gravitation.' If the 'path of a photon' idea was so wrong, it should be easy to point out the flaw. Trust me, we are waiting.

A leap of assumption. How did you establish that what you're seeing is the shadow of the Earth? And how did you establish that a circular shadow must have been cast by a sphere and not (for example) a cyllinder, a coin, a half-sphere, or a guac bowl?

It's actually pretty simple, Peter. When the Earth is situated between the Sun and moon, it is quite easy to figure out what is casting the shadow. Or maybe it is that magical 'shadow object' that FET proposes? You know, that thing that has never been observed.  It's just another made up entity to cover up FET's flaws.

[GiantTurtle]

Gravitation as we "know" it has been soundly disproved, by people who think the Earth is round, no less.

Out of interest by who?
Because gravity has actually been detected in space, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves
and what we are all here for, on earth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_testing_2

[Pete Svarrior]

Out of interest by who?

Wikipedia is a good starting point for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Please do enlighten us. Due to the variations in gravitation strength on Earth, it is very clear that 'Universal Acceleration' is not the source of gravitation.

UA is the main factor in what we perceive as gravity. Gravitation accounts for the forces which cause the variations in gravity you're looking for.

it really isn't. You're just 100% wrong.

Thank you for your contribution. It has been duly noted and catalogued.

It's actually pretty simple, Peter. When the Earth is situated between the Sun and moon

Ah, yes, a leap of assumption is a fantastic way to explain another leap of assumption. How did you ascertain the location of the Sun when it was outside of your line of sight?

[StinkyOne]

UA is the main factor in what we perceive as gravity. Gravitation accounts for the forces which cause the variations in gravity you're looking for.

And you proved this how? What experiments have you done to verify these results? What is the gravitational strength of CG, how is it generated, and how is it transferred? Is it based on mass?

Thank you for your contribution. It has been duly noted and catalogued.

As has yours. Still waiting on that photon thing. I'm sure you guys will make something up that explains it.

Ah, yes, a leap of assumption is a fantastic way to explain another leap of assumption. How did you ascertain the location of the Sun when it was outside of your line of sight?

We know the location of the sun and moon relative to Earth. This is how we know when the sun is going to rise, when it will set, the phases of the moon, etc. Remember that eclipse that crossed the US? Yep, we knew that was going to happen. No fantastic assumptions needed.

[GiantTurtle]

Out of interest by who?

Wikipedia is a good starting point for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Well obviously the first thing that drew my attention was among others the flyby anomaly which is by spacecraft and metric expansion by the hubble space telescope, which are from space travel and most of FET claim cannot exist. Is that your opinion on the matter?

The rest are things that are not explained and related to gravity, a misunderstanding of gravity is not the only explanation for any of these. But if gravity was changed due to one of these observations, then I don't see how those would fit into the theory of universal acceleration.

[Curious Squirrel]

As it's not terribly on topic, I would love to see you comment about just how/why the path of the photon thought isn't well thought out, or better yet lay out just how exactly the sun sets on a FE in one of the threads on the matter. If it's so wrong it shouldn't take too much of your time I hope.

As for here, you believe in a FE. May I ask if I have missed a strong/compelling reason here? Or perhaps misrepresented one of them? I know Tom feels there's strong empirical evidence (that I look forward to discussing with him) but considering you believe you must feel the case is stronger than how I presented it here. I would love to know how/where you feel I've erred.

[Pete Svarrior]

Still waiting on that photon thing. I'm sure you guys will make something up that explains it.

I tend not to feed trolls (sometimes I fail - we all make mistakes - but this will not be one of those times). Waiting would be an inefficient use of your time.

We know the location of the sun and moon relative to Earth. This is how we know when the sun is going to rise, when it will set, the phases of the moon, etc. Remember that eclipse that crossed the US? Yep, we knew that was going to happen.

Indeed - a long-term observation of eclipse patterns provided us with a repeatable pattern which is very easy to use. Very little to do with your assumptions, though. I take it you have no real answer?

Well obviously the first thing that drew my attention was among others the flyby anomaly which is by spacecraft and metric expansion by the hubble space telescope, which are from space travel and most of FET claim cannot exist. Is that your opinion on the matter?

Not quite. You see, a common debating strategy that Round Earthers use is to take something that no serious FE'er believes, assert that it is part of FET, and then act as if their disproof of a their own claim somehow hurts our cause. I simply find it interesting that the same Round Earthers take things that are provably not part of RET, and use them to justify RET.

As for here, you believe in a FE. May I ask if I have missed a strong/compelling reason here? Or perhaps misrepresented one of them? I know Tom feels there's strong empirical evidence (that I look forward to discussing with him) but considering you believe you must feel the case is stronger than how I presented it here. I would love to know how/where you feel I've erred.

I think your assessment covers a fair number of bases. I disagree with your conclusions, but it looks to me like you've tried to be fair, and I appreciate your input even if I'm going to choose to mostly disregard it.

[StinkyOne]

I tend not to feed trolls (sometimes I fail - we all make mistakes - but this will not be one of those times). Waiting would be an inefficient use of your time.

A very transparent attempt to not answer a completely valid question. It has been asked numerous times by several people on this site. You can't answer it, so you attack the person asking.

Indeed - a long-term observation of eclipse patterns provided us with a repeatable pattern which is very easy to use. Very little to do with your assumptions, though. I take it you have no real answer?

Indeed, back when people still thought the Earth was flat, they used the Saros Cycle. Today's calculations are far more accurate in location and timing. They also take into account the moon's topography to predict that actual shape of the shadow.

[Curious Squirrel]

Indeed - a long-term observation of eclipse patterns provided us with a repeatable pattern which is very easy to use. Very little to do with your assumptions, though. I take it you have no real answer?

Indeed, back when people still thought the Earth was flat, they used the Saros Cycle. Today's calculations are far more accurate in location and timing. They also take into account the moon's topography to predict that actual shape of the shadow.

I feel I should point out that the last time this issue was brought up, I found out that there is some evidence the scholars that created the Saros Cycle actually held to a globe Earth model. One of the few surviving objects from that area and time period is a model of a globe Earth. At least according to some information I explored last time the Saros Cycle was discussed.

[GiantTurtle]

Well obviously the first thing that drew my attention was among others the flyby anomaly which is by spacecraft and metric expansion by the hubble space telescope, which are from space travel and most of FET claim cannot exist. Is that your opinion on the matter?

Not quite. You see, a common debating strategy that Round Earthers use is to take something that no serious FE'er believes, assert that it is part of FET, and then act as if their disproof of a their own claim somehow hurts our cause. I simply find it interesting that the same Round Earthers take things that are provably not part of RET, and use them to justify RET.

I didn't assume that you believed that space travel didn't exist, I did actually ask you.
Unrelated to the thread but as you are here, since you believe in space travel, How could satellites orbit without a round earth? Especially polar orbits.

[mtnman]

We know the location of the sun and moon relative to Earth. This is how we know when the sun is going to rise, when it will set, the phases of the moon, etc. Remember that eclipse that crossed the US? Yep, we knew that was going to happen.

Indeed - a long-term observation of eclipse patterns provided us with a repeatable pattern which is very easy to use. Very little to do with your assumptions, though. I take it you have no real answer?

I don't think there is any dispute that there are patterns to eclipses. They go back at least hundreds of years. But those long term observations are not sufficient to predict the time of the eclipse to the second or to exactly predict the shadow's path across the Earth. That requires math based on the movement of the Earth and moon around the sun.

[Pete Svarrior]

since you believe in space travel

I have no idea where you got that from.

A very transparent attempt to not answer a completely valid question. It has been asked numerous times by several people on this site. You can't answer it, so you attack the person asking.

I can't answer it because it's nonsensical. I've tried explaining this many times before. If you inject something into FET and ask me to defend this altered version, I won't do so. That is because I do not support your alteration. If you'd like, I can play the same game. I can round up a small group of people and ask them to keep asking you the same question over and over. It will make no sense. It will be a complete non-sequitur. But, after all, since you can't answer it, you must be wrong!

I'll also just take a moment to point out that you're projecting. So far, every question I've asked you resulted in nothing of value coming from you. Perhaps you should consider being the change you want to see?

That requires math based on the movement of the Earth and moon around the sun.

Clearly, we disagree.

[Curious Squirrel]

A very transparent attempt to not answer a completely valid question. It has been asked numerous times by several people on this site. You can't answer it, so you attack the person asking.

I can't answer it because it's nonsensical. I've tried explaining this many times before. If you inject something into FET and ask me to defend this altered version, I won't do so. That is because I do not support your alteration. If you'd like, I can play the same game. I can round up a small group of people and ask them to keep asking you the same question over and over. It will make no sense. It will be a complete non-sequitur. But, after all, since you can't answer it, you must be wrong!

I'll also just take a moment to point out that you're projecting. So far, every question I've asked you resulted in nothing of value coming from you. Perhaps you should consider being the change you want to see?

You say FE answers the sunset problem, and this photon idea/question isn't an issue. Now you claim we're in fact making the problem up somehow. How about simple question then. How does the sun set for your FE, and where is it located at that time? The sunset issue is readily prevalent in the FE hypothesis presented in the wiki. So that leaves me to presume you subscribe to a different idea on just how it happens. Mind sharing?