[stack]

Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.

Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.

I know, down the rabbit hole we go.

[JCM]

Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.

Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.

I know, down the rabbit hole we go.

So, what is causing the stars to accelerate and decelerate as they orbit the Earth?  Speeding up to get above us, then slowing down to get below, and why are they orbiting us in the first place? Not only that but with perfect angular momentums maintaining their distance from each other.  I.E. stars moving at different apparent speeds looking at their star trails.

[stack]

Agreed. That's why I'm thinking there must be a hybrid.

Earth is flat, non-rotating, no gravity.
Enter UA.
Celestial objects above earth are being pushed up by UA as the dark energy swirls up and over the sides of the earth disc.
Planets are round, with round moons, all of which being pushed up by UA.
These moons orbit b/c of their host planet's own gravitational pull that is separate from UA.

I know, down the rabbit hole we go.

So, what is causing the stars to accelerate and decelerate as they orbit the Earth?  Speeding up to get above us, then slowing down to get below, and why are they orbiting us in the first place? Not only that but with perfect angular momentums maintaining their distance from each other.  I.E. stars moving at different apparent speeds looking at their star trails.

Great question. Like how UA doesn't solve for orbiting moons, it doesn't solve for this issue either. At least I haven't seen an explanation. 

[RonJ]

The eternal plane paradigm would preclude having any dark energy swirling around the edge of the earth and pushing up on the sun and moon.  How would you get around the plane if it's eternal?  You could say that the dark energy could flow thru the earth and provide an acceleration to an object according to it's mass.  That would keep all the small stuff on the earth's surface.  If that same dark energy was also keeping the sun and moon at a constant distance from the earth then the accelerations would be the same.  Now, if that is the case then the mass of the sun and moon would have to be the same as the earth.  I'm assuming that the sun and moon are composed of different substances.  One substance (extremely dense) would have to provide a lot of heat (sun) and the other would have to be cool (moon).  Additionally the same dark energy would have to contain the atmolayer to the top surface of the earth.  That's a very tall order for dark energy.  Somehow it can provide just the right amount of push on all kinds of objects and get them all to stay in their assigned locations.  Is that same dark energy pushing on the side of the sun when necessary to change the orbit to so the seasons change?  Now you have dark energy that can provide a push in multiple directions because after the sun moves to a larger orbit, it will have to be pushed in the opposite direction to move back.  It's also smart.  It knows when it time for winter, spring, summer, and fall.  I'm going to need a cell phone application to keep track of all that.  If you believe in Occam's razor, gravity would make a lot more sense.

[JCM]

Something else about our moon is the waxing crescent changes direction for the same location on the planet as the year progresses as well as its path.  In the summer in northern latitudes, the moon is lit from the side making the familiar “C” shape and a shallower angle through the sky yet in the winter the same waxing crescent is lit from below and looks more like a “U” with a much sharper angle through the sky.     What is making the phase shift as well as changing the path of the moon?  UA would by definition be universal so what other force that’s periodic on a yearly basis is affecting the moon?

[stack]

Here in lies the rub for much of of FET to both RonJ's & JSM's recent points as well as the OP itself. As one FET solution is proposed to solve for one observation, it has a tendency to break a bunch of others. Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory. UA is one of these conundrums; you can't have gravity on a finite flat earth so something else has to be postulated. I think the concept of UA is pretty interesting and a clever answer to the absence of a 'gravity' concept, but a lot has to be done to fill in the gaping holes it presents. Suffice to say, UA, in my opinion, has no explanations for most of the observations presented here. Which leaves us where? I don't know. But as with many other observations FET can't mesh with even adequately, the explanation is 'unknown'.

[Mysfit]

Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory.

I have requested a page on the flat earth theory on the wiki (thanks for your help), but my request has led to doubt of even calling it 'theory'

I have never liked the term "Flat Earth Theory." Although I have used it in the past to refer to FE, I actually think this term should be abolished.

I believe it to be a movement of empirical discovery of our world, and is not about one particular theory or idea.

Considering a lack of solidarity, the act of disproving parts of flat theory, such as my 'small effect' seem a bit moot.
A flat earther looks at my claims and disregards them based on their own model in their head. This assumes that they believe my work at all. Hurdle one.

The only way I can think about going about discussion is to point out when someone claims something against the wiki. Treating the wiki as law.

[JCM]

Perhaps why there isn't really a cohesive even semi-agreed upon theory.

I have requested a page on the flat earth theory on the wiki (thanks for your help), but my request has led to doubt of even calling it 'theory'

I have never liked the term "Flat Earth Theory." Although I have used it in the past to refer to FE, I actually think this term should be abolished.

I believe it to be a movement of empirical discovery of our world, and is not about one particular theory or idea.

Considering a lack of solidarity, the act of disproving parts of flat theory, such as my 'small effect' seem a bit moot.
A flat earther looks at my claims and disregards them based on their own model in their head. This assumes that they believe my work at all. Hurdle one.

The only way I can think about going about discussion is to point out when someone claims something against the wiki. Treating the wiki as law.

That is my opinion as well. What I don’t understand is this notion of FE believers is that having 8 different flat earth ideas is ok and somehow helps their theory when it really just shows the extent of its enormous failures to describe simple observations.  Perhaps the only thing one can have a discussion about is flatness of any kind, all else is immaterial as 7 other “theories” are used as a defense of a specific issue.  If being flat at all is impossible, that is what is worth discussing in the long run.

[Tom Bishop]

If the Round Earth Theorists could prove their case decisively, it shouldn't matter how many ideas we have about a topic.

[AATW]

If the Round Earth Theorists could prove their case decisively, it shouldn't matter how many ideas we have about a topic.

A: I don't believe kangaroos exist
B: What are you talking about? Of course kangaroos exist! I've seen pictures of them.
A: Those are fake. CGI.
B: O...K...right, but here's my friend Bruce, he comes from Australia and has seem them in the wild
A: I don't believe him, he's in on the great kangaroo conspiracy
B: Right! Right! We're at a zoo. Look! There's a kangaroo
A: That's clearly animatronic, the zoo must be in on it too!
B: *sigh*

You are A. And you run away from this conversation claiming you won the argument and that B hasn't proven the existence of kangaroos "decisively".
The mindset is well explained in this article:

http://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160

They’re right that you don’t know the earth is round. But they’re only right in a context where testimonies of hundreds are disregarded, where widely accepted facts among the scientific community don’t count, where photographic evidence is inadmissible, and so on.
The flat earther’s argument is framed in a context where you can’t set aside the possibility that there’s a pervading global conspiracy – albeit one which somehow intermittently leaves glaring errors which give them away. In that context, you don’t know the earth is round. But in that context, nobody knows much at all and so this conclusion is simply unsurprising.
In the more everyday contexts that we care about, we can rely on testimony. We can rely on the fact that every educated physicist, cartographer and geographer never pauses to think the earth might be flat. And we are correct to rely on these things. If it was incorrect, we’d never get treated at hospitals – for in a context where we can’t trust the established laws of physics, how could we trust the judgements of medical science?
So do you know whether the earth is round? It turns out it depends on context. But in most regular contexts then, yes, you do

You demand a level of proof for a round earth which is impossible to satisfy and which you do not apply to anything else, you certainly don't apply it to Rowbotham's pontification which you accept at face value.

[Tom Bishop]

If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.

You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.

You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.

You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round earth.

You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.

You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravitational perturbations" or whatever.

[edby]

If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you guys allege then you guys would EASILY be able to prove any of these topics beyond doubt.
[…]

You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.

You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.
[…]

Neither of these is necessary to demonstrate curvature of the earth.
The strongest evidence we have is the science of measurement, which was developed to an incredible accuracy even by the early nineteenth century.

[JCM]

If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you
guys allege then you guys could EASILY prove any of these topics beyond doubt.

You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.

You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.

You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round Earth.

You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.

You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravity perturbations" or whatever.

1. August 21, 2017..  are you suggesting that that eclipse was not predicted to an acceptable precision? If so, your demand is unrealistic.  April 8 2024 we have another path of totality through the easternU.S. It will cross over Mazatlán, Mexico and will be great vacation destination to view such an event.  Are you suggesting that this will not happen?   

2.  Can’t predict planet positions?  You can buy off the shelf software which can control your mounted computer guided telescope and will point at those planets for you... Nevermind the planetary missions from various space agencies using launch windows and gravity’s assists to navigate the solar system.  Nevermind the discovery of Neptune.   Where do you get this stuff?

3. The sinking ship, and other objects hidden by the curve is well documented and explained both visually and mathematically proven.  Rabinoz  and JackBlack and others have shown the math and the visuals dozens of times. You like to find mirages and special cases of refraction then apply that special case to every curvature example and incorrectly assume it breaks the globe.  As well as using the wrong math to describe how much should be hidden, knowingly so, demonstratably so, then say see.... no globe.

4.  Round Earth doesn’t predict the positions of the Sun and Moon?  This is pretty rich when there is not one FE explanation for 1. Sun shape 2. Moonphases 3. Suns path in summer/winter 4. FE has no explanation for how in the Northern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and then sets in the northwest, whereas in the Southern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the southeast, and then sets in the southwest. Tell me how that is possible of a flat earth but makes perfect sense on a globe tilted on its axis.

If 99.99% accurate isn’t enough proof for you then what exactly do you want?  RE people say the Earth is moving, the Sun is moving, all the planets are moving, the entire solar system has its own rotation, and the entire galaxy is moving through space. All of it affected by gravity from everything.  That sounds like a complicated system, it’s not simplistic fantastical celestial gears periodic in nature you can just make a timetable and solve.  That’s what the earliest skywatchers thought and they were wrong.   If you want a clockwork model that works like a machine which can perfectly predict everything every time to hundreds of years in the future that I see is simply impossible which I think is your aim.    At least be honest, what you want is impossible.

[Tom Bishop]

If the evidence for RET were so mountainous as you
guys allege then you guys could EASILY prove any of these topics beyond doubt.

You would be able to show three body problem models that could predict the eclipses.

You would be able to show a model that can predict the position of the planets.

You would be able to show that the sinking ship effect reflects the amount of disappearance for a round Earth.

You would be able to show that the position of the sun or moon can be predicted under assumptions of a round earth.

You have none of that. You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravity perturbations" or whatever.

1. August 21, 2017..  are you suggesting that that eclipse was not predicted to an acceptable precision? If so, your demand is unrealistic.  April 8 2024 we have another path of totality through the easternU.S. It will cross over Mazatlán, Mexico and will be great vacation destination to view such an event.  Are you suggesting that this will not happen?   

2.  Can’t predict planet positions?  You can buy off the shelf software which can control your mounted computer guided telescope and will point at those planets for you... Nevermind the planetary missions from various space agencies using launch windows and gravity’s assists to navigate the solar system.  Nevermind the discovery of Neptune.   Where do you get this stuff?

3. The sinking ship, and other objects hidden by the curve is well documented and explained both visually and mathematically proven.  Rabinoz  and JackBlack and others have shown the math and the visuals dozens of times. You like to find mirages and special cases of refraction then apply that special case to every curvature example and incorrectly assume it breaks the globe.  As well as using the wrong math to describe how much should be hidden, knowingly so, demonstratably so, then say see.... no globe.

4.  Round Earth doesn’t predict the positions of the Sun and Moon?  This is pretty rich when there is not one FE explanation for 1. Sun shape 2. Moonphases 3. Suns path in summer/winter 4. FE has no explanation for how in the Northern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the northeast, and then sets in the northwest, whereas in the Southern Hemisphere in summer, the Sun rises in the southeast, and then sets in the southwest. Tell me how that is possible of a flat earth but makes perfect sense on a globe tilted on its axis.

If 99.99% accurate isn’t enough proof for you then what exactly do you want?  RE people say the Earth is moving, the Sun is moving, all the planets are moving, the entire solar system has its own rotation, and the entire galaxy is moving through space. All of it affected by gravity from everything.  That sounds like a complicated system, it’s not simplistic fantastical celestial gears periodic in nature you can just make a timetable and solve.  That’s what the earliest skywatchers thought and they were wrong.   If you want a clockwork model that works like a machine which can perfectly predict everything every time to hundreds of years in the future that I see is simply impossible which I think is your aim.    At least be honest, what you want is impossible.

No. Those predictions are based on the ancient method of pattern-based prediction, not a model of the round earth system. The eclipses are phenomena that come in patterns. By identifying the pattern, one can make a future prediction. The prediction of the planets are likewise made on a pattern-predicting method. If you know the pattern the bodies move in, an equation can be made to express it and predict what it will do in the future.

The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.

Per the sinking ship, we've had many examples on this forum where the sinking effect does not reflect the predictions of RET.

[RonJ]

You can't get far about arguing about theory.  I would have a very difficult time 'proving' to my wife, just using words, that I actually went to the grocery store on my way home from work.  We could argue indefinitely, but if I pulled out that loaf of bread and the quart of milk, along with a receipt, that would quickly end the argument.  The simple act of producing the grocery sack & receipt would quickly convert the theory into fact.  The round earth people have developed a theory about the earth that's based on it being spherical and with gravity.  That theory is just ideas and words.  By itself it's mostly meaningless.  What's important is what you can actually do that is useful with your theory.  That effectively converts your theory to fact.  A mindless, soulless, piece of equipment has 'no dog in the fight', it just works or doesn't work according to it's design and the way it was built.  I contend that there is equipment out there that was designed and built with a spherical earth as an essential part of the design.  That equipment works as expected.  Doesn't that effectively convert any theory to fact?

[Tom Bishop]

You can't get far about arguing about theory.  I would have a very difficult time 'proving' to my wife, just using words, that I actually went to the grocery store on my way home from work.  We could argue indefinitely, but if I pulled out that loaf of bread and the quart of milk, along with a receipt, that would quickly end the argument.  The simple act of producing the grocery sack & receipt would quickly convert the theory into fact.  The round earth people have developed a theory about the earth that's based on it being spherical and with gravity.  That theory is just ideas and words.  By itself it's mostly meaningless.  What's important is what you can actually do that is useful with your theory.  That effectively converts your theory to fact.  A mindless, soulless, piece of equipment has 'no dog in the fight', it just works or doesn't work according to it's design and the way it was built.  I contend that there is equipment out there that was designed and built with a spherical earth as an essential part of the design.  That equipment works as expected.  Doesn't that effectively convert any theory to fact?

I am not making a philosophical argument that "nothing can be proven." Just make accurate predictions with the Round Earth Theory. That demonstrates its validity beyond doubt.

[edby]

The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.

But the round earth hypothesis does explain the precise measurements we have, which are entirely inconsistent with flat earth hypothesis.

[JCM]

No. Those predictions are based on the ancient method of pattern-based prediction, not a model of the round earth system. The eclipses are phenomena that come in patterns. By identifying the pattern, one can make a future prediction. The prediction of the planets are likewise made on a pattern-predicting method. If you know the pattern the bodies move in, an equation can be made to express it and predict what it will do in the future.

The truth is that the Round Earth Theory cannot predict anything at all.

Per the sinking ship, we've had many examples on this forum where the sinking effect does not reflect the predictions of RET.

If you took a few seconds to search online, you would see that the exact times, places, paths, are predicted out hundreds of years.  They also explain the margin of error in km tightening up if within only a few hundred years.  Show me where it’s just a pattern. You have not only the date to prove a pattern but it’s exact PATH, WIDTH, LENGTH, DURATION, DIRECTION, and LOCATION on the planet.  You are making the affirmative statement it’s just a pattern, show me the pattern, then apply that’s pattern to your map.  Evil NASA has figured this out, and it is near perfectly reproducible and confirmable. They have nothing to prove here. 

[RonJ]

It is possible to make a prediction 'down to the gnats ass' about things in the round earth theory just using well known equations.  What isn't possible is knowing 'down to a gnats ass' the value of all the variables.  Things about the total mass of the earth, it's density or it's exact radius are just 'best guesses' made over many years of measurement.  Even if you could hold a tape measure between the center of the earth and a point on the outer edge it would still only be an estimate because the sphere isn't totally round or smooth.  That means that there will always be a 'fudge factor' in any prediction you make.   In some of my college engineering classes we were always taught to include in all our equations an estimated error and factor that into the result calculation.  What's smaller than a gnats ass?  Many error factors are not constant at all.  That's where stochastic differential equations come into play.  Sometimes you make a prediction of an expected event and something goes wrong.  That doesn't necessarily mean that your theory, or equations, are wrong.  There are plenty of places where you could have made mistakes.  I once saw a total eclipse of the moon at sea that was predicted by the navigation officer based on the data in our nautical almanac. It happened just when expected. For other events that may only occur every 20 years or so, it can take a long time to completely verify a theory.  Things in life are mostly probabilistic.  A single observation can't really prove or disprove much of anything. 

[stack]

You guys just mumble "refraction" and "patterns" and "gravitational perturbations" or whatever.

For one, I think Rowbotham was 'mumbling' about refraction in Earth Not a Globe long before we were.

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm

  If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

Yet the question remains, what in FET explain moons predictably, 'patternistically' orbiting planets? So far, from an FET perspective, I would say the explanation is unknown.