*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« on: February 06, 2016, 01:23:35 AM »
My contention is that the accepted dimensions of the earth simply do not fit of a flat surface.

In the post https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4557.msg88728#msg88728 I tried to argue the following:

The accepted distance from the equator to the north pole is 10,000 km, (give or take a few km).
The accepted circumference at the equator (flat or globe) is 40,000 km, (give or take a few km).

On any flat earth map I have seen the radius of the equator circle is simply the distance from the equator to the north pole.

But on any round disk a circle (the equator circle) the circumference is 2 x π x radius (of the equator circle) or 62,832 km.

So, by my reckoning on the real earth the distance around the equator is 40,000 km,
but if the earth were flat, to fit with the 10,000 km
equator to pole distance distance around the equator would have to be 62,832 km.

This seems to imply that the earth with these measurements simply will not fit on a plane surface.

There are a number of ways to justify these figures (or very close ones), some from flat earth sources, but I will omit these for brevity here.
You can look up my previous posts for some of these.

Basically the only response I have had is one from Tom Bishop that simply said "evidence".  In the original post, and in the answer to Tom Bishop I gave some more evidence. If someone has some other dimensions, we can discuss those, but I do believe I have enough support even some in Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe and other Flat Earth sources.
Now, unless someone comes up with some dimensions that differ markedly from mine,
the only conclusion that can be drawn is that THE EARTH is NOT FLAT.
I am quite prepared to accept that I have presented this in a boring fashion, or badly,
but I do firmly believe that there is a real case to answer!

[Edit - a little better wording]
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 06:52:26 AM by rabinoz »

Saddam Hussein

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2016, 01:28:41 AM »
Why did you make a second thread for this?  One was enough. ???

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2016, 01:55:27 AM »
TFES is very interested in debating the shape of the Earth. However, TFES is not interested in catering to the whims of temperamental children who come here and demand that we coddle them.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2016, 02:31:58 AM »
Here is what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth.



I find the flat earth model more plausible.

I can not personally attest to the measurments of the land masses because I have never measured an entire continent.

Nor have I ever calibrated my own measuring device to see if it is "accurate".

Which brings me to this point. When measuring the earth, what devices and  calibrations should we be using?

Are planes really traveling the speed that they suggest? Are cars really travelling the speed that they suggest?

What exactly is a mile? Have you taken a tape measure and accurately measured a mile out on the earth surface?

Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?


Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2016, 03:02:03 AM »
Here is what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth.



I find the flat earth model more plausible.

I can not personally attest to the measurments of the land masses because I have never measured an entire continent.

Nor have I ever calibrated my own measuring device to see if it is "accurate".

Which brings me to this point. When measuring the earth, what devices and  calibrations should we be using?

Are planes really traveling the speed that they suggest? Are cars really travelling the speed that they suggest?

What exactly is a mile? Have you taken a tape measure and accurately measured a mile out on the earth surface?

Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?

Are you purposely using misinformation to further your belief or are you doing so out of ignorance?

The image you chose is a representation of gravity.  It is not "what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth."

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2016, 05:30:37 AM »
Why did you make a second thread for this?  One was enough. ???

Because the only reply to the other one was from Tom Bishop, who simply said "Evidence".  I gave more and he never even replied.

So, it seems no-one cares enough to prove me wrong!

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2016, 06:08:59 AM »
Here is what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth.



I find the flat earth model more plausible.

I can not personally attest to the measurments of the land masses because I have never measured an entire continent.

Nor have I ever calibrated my own measuring device to see if it is "accurate".

Which brings me to this point. When measuring the earth, what devices and  calibrations should we be using?

Are planes really traveling the speed that they suggest? Are cars really travelling the speed that they suggest?

What exactly is a mile? Have you taken a tape measure and accurately measured a mile out on the earth surface?

Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?

Are you telling me you are actually rejecting every thing you are told?  How can you accept the evidence offered from anybody on anything?

How can evidence saying the Earth is flat be accepted based on observation and experiments available.  How can you accept that someone says they can see a light house a certain amount of distance away when you can not be for certain the mile stated is actually the length we are told it is.

So if you plan a route on a map.  You start your trip and keep track of your speed and distance.  If everything adds up that does not validate that the map, speedometer, and odometer are correct?

Personally I think one thing everyone here everyone should be able to agree on is the distance of standard systems of measuring.

Just to give evidence of confirmation bias or lets call it willful ignorance this photo was released with this caption:
"Courtesty NASA AotD: NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH"

So my guess you got that picture from some site or person who neglected to tell people what the picture was actually representing or had very little understanding of what they were looking at.  Are these the people you want to influence your view of reality and how things work in the universe?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2016, 06:10:00 AM »
I find the flat earth model more plausible.
I can not personally attest to the measurments of the land masses because I have never measured an entire continent.
Nor have I ever calibrated my own measuring device to see if it is "accurate".
Which brings me to this point. When measuring the earth, what devices and  calibrations should we be using?
Are planes really traveling the speed that they suggest? Are cars really travelling the speed that they suggest?
What exactly is a mile? Have you taken a tape measure and accurately measured a mile out on the earth surface?
Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?
     Here is what's currently accepted by the science
community with regards to the shape of the earth.
Stop being utterly ridiculous.  You know that picture is nothing like the Globe. 
The deviations from a perfect sphere are around ±0.3%.
Yes, sometimes pictures with exaggerated vertical scales are shown so we can see just where the highs and lows are.
The real earth is so smooth that you would hardly see a wrinkle!

Because you "can not personally attest" to all these things, you won't accept them.
Fine, how do you know the bridge you are going to drive over is safe.  I suppose you wait until you see 10 others cross first, then creep across!
How do you know the brakes on the new car you are driving won't fail down the next steep hill?

In other words because you are too lazy to check things out you will carry on thinking what you like.
Just sometimes the first impressions we get are not the right ones.

In some cases I have checked distances by driving in a car.
I do take the trouble to check the accuracy of the oddometer. How,
I trust that the distances on maps are reasonably accurate, then check with my navigator and in the current and previous vehicles I have had I know these readings usually agree to within about 1% and that's close enough for anything here!

If you don't trust the definitions of metre, kilometre, foot and mile - I just pity you!

As an example of checking my previous car. We travelled from Warakurna SW to Leanora in central Australia.  The cars oddo showed the start to finish distance as 901 km. On the Garmin Navigator maps the total route showed 901 km. Now  agreement that good is not expected, I expected an error of maybe 10 km - but it was still re-assuring.

And surely for the last few hundreds of years we have had clock that are far more accurate then you need! The watch on you wrist is far more accurate needed here - and where do you need to measure time.
You ask "Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?" Of course it does! Unless you want allow for relativistic time dilation, and even there the error is so small that I cannot easily calculate it!

Still if you are so paranoid that you simply trust no-one else, then there is nothing I can do or say!

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2016, 10:17:07 AM »
Here is a "video" compiled by ESA.



"a unique model of the ‘geoid’ – the surface of an ideal global ocean at rest."

Again, I find the flat earth model more plausible...

From my understanding GPS uses the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008) to find "sea level". Thus this represents the shape of the earth.

"The WGS 84 constants used to define the reference ellipsoid, and the associated normal gravity field, to which the geoid undulations are referenced are:
a=6378137.00 m (semi-major axis of WGS 84 ellipsoid)
f=1/298.257223563 (flattening of WGS 84 ellipsoid)
GM=3.986004418 x 1014 m3s-2 (Product of the Earth's mass and the Gravitational Constant)
ω=7292115 x 10-11 radians/sec (Earth's angular velocity)

SOURCE: http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/egm08_wgs84.html

Here is a direct quote from ESA :

"This will result in a unique model of the ‘geoid’ – the surface of an ideal global ocean at rest."

SOURCE: http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_delivering_data_for_best_gravity_map_ever

And to address some of the other questions...

You guys seemed to be firing off in the wrong direction from what I was asking.

Some of my questions were actually rhetorical.

So I will ask just this question:

 Have you ever taken a tape measure and measured a mile  (or kilometer) on the earths surface?

If not, how do you know your car and GPS is accurate in measuring how far you travelled?

Over land, slight deviations in measurements may not add up to be a substantial error to you, but over vast oceans, slight deviations have taken many ships to the bottom of the ocean, even still today.

It would only make sense to me that one would need to develope a new measuring device(s) to "prove" anything.

You RE'ers are pouncing as if I'm defending the flat earth model.

I'm not. I'm trying to let you know that nothing is definative. Nor does this Society claim it to be. Nor should you. It's foolish.

You are demanding that the presented flat earth model(s) make sense to you and your measurments.

Problem is, those are not "your" measurments. Those measurements that you know, have been collectively agreed on by "science", however you have never made your own calculations.

You are expecting FE researchers to appease your inquiries without considering that entire new methods will need to be established.

And if it took 2,000 years to get to RE, it may take as long or longer to get to FE.

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2016, 11:02:33 AM »
time

Time... I am still and will be digging into that rabbit hole for a long time...

Clocks go out of synchronization all the time...

Time lol, its an interesting concept, abused and taken granted for. To think for yourself and contemplate the earth we all dwell and time herein, is what our brains were designed to do. It's all we have to do once you strip away all that has been forced up on us.

I personally believe that all mankind needs to live harmoniously is the sun and moon. That's my ideal time "clock".

Instead we've taken time and use it to drop bombs on each other.

We abuse our time even to the degree of sitting in traffic for an hour a day x 5 days a week x 52 weeks. Over 50 years that's equivalent to 541 days.

541 days on average sitting in traffic.

"They" always tell "you" what time it is.

I could go on, but who's got the time?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2016, 11:21:17 AM »
time
Time... I am still and will be digging into that rabbit hole for a long time...
Clocks go out of synchronization all the time...
Time lol, its an interesting concept, abused and taken granted for. To think for yourself and contemplate the earth we all dwell and time herein, is what our brains were designed to do. It's all we have to do once you strip away all that has been forced up on us.
I personally believe that all mankind needs to live harmoniously is the sun and moon. That's my ideal time "clock".
Instead we've taken time and use it to drop bombs on each other.
We abuse our time even to the degree of sitting in traffic for an hour a day x 5 days a week x 52 weeks. Over 50 years that's equivalent to 541 days.
541 days on average sitting in traffic.
"They" always tell "you" what time it is.
I could go on, but who's got the time?
Instead of wasting all this time ranting over your inability to measure anything, why not just refute my arguments. If you cannot refute them,
then there is the possibility that I might be correct.
Sure the earth might look flat, but that 7000 metre globe looks pretty flat to that little ant.

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2016, 01:00:54 AM »
why not just refute my arguments.

You mean refute this:

Quote
I trust that the distances on maps are reasonably accurate

I cannot refute a statement like that. You trust something, I cannot say otherwise.

I didn't see any other sentences to refute as they were just opinionated comments like the one above.

If you would point to one of your comments you'd like refuted, please post it again.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2016, 01:37:33 AM »
Here is a "video" compiled by ESA.
(I have seen it and commented - don't waste more space)"a unique model of the ‘geoid’ – the surface of an ideal global ocean at rest."
Again, I find the flat earth model more plausible...
From my understanding GPS uses the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008) to find "sea level". Thus this represents the shape of the earth.
"The WGS 84 constants used to define the reference ellipsoid, and the associated normal gravity field, to which the geoid undulations are referenced are:
a=6378137.00 m (semi-major axis of WGS 84 ellipsoid)
f=1/298.257223563 (flattening of WGS 84 ellipsoid)
GM=3.986004418 x 1014 m3s-2 (Product of the Earth's mass and the Gravitational Constant)
ω=7292115 x 10-11 radians/sec (Earth's angular velocity)
SOURCE: http://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/egm08_wgs84.html
Here is a direct quote from ESA :
"This will result in a unique model of the ‘geoid’ – the surface of an ideal global ocean at rest."
SOURCE: http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_delivering_data_for_best_gravity_map_ever

And to address some of the other questions...
You guys seemed to be firing off in the wrong direction from what I was asking.
Some of my questions were actually rhetorical.
So I will ask just this question:
 Have you ever taken a tape measure and measured a mile  (or kilometer) on the earths surface?
If not, how do you know your car and GPS is accurate in measuring how far you travelled?
Over land, slight deviations in measurements may not add up to be a substantial error to you, but over vast oceans, slight deviations have taken many ships to the bottom of the ocean, even still today.
It would only make sense to me that one would need to develope a new measuring device(s) to "prove" anything.
You RE'ers are pouncing as if I'm defending the flat earth model.
I'm not. I'm trying to let you know that nothing is definative. Nor does this Society claim it to be. Nor should you. It's foolish.
You are demanding that the presented flat earth model(s) make sense to you and your measurments.
Problem is, those are not "your" measurments. Those measurements that you know, have been collectively agreed on by "science", however you have never made your own calculations.
You are expecting FE researchers to appease your inquiries without considering that entire new methods will need to be established.
And if it took 2,000 years to get to RE, it may take as long or longer to get to FE.
You quote:
a=6378137.00 m (semi-major axis of WGS 84 ellipsoid) and f=1/298.257223563 (flattening of WGS 84 ellipsoid)
That simply means that the "flattening at the pole" is only about 1/3 % - that is pretty SPHERICAL.

Then you ask: " Have you ever taken a tape measure and measured a mile (or kilometer) on the earths surface?", sure
but if I did that you could then ask "How do I know the tape is accurate?"

You simply cannot determine all this youself.
No one person in their whole lifetime can possible do all the measurements and develop all the things we take fo granted!
We could never have had: Ships sailing of "steam", steam for powering factories and locomotives, electric power, lights, motors, recording devices, cameras, telegraph, wired phones, eletronics, mobile phones, computers, data communication, internet, . . . . the list is endless.
If people could not build their knowledge on those that came before we would still be living in caves trying to kill for food with rocks!
Yes, I mean that quite literally!

But, for some unfathomable reason, there are those who quite happily go along with all the features of modern living, yet deny one quite small section of "the knowledge".

Take Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton for instance. These people did tremendous work on so many quite uncontroversial fields.
  • Robert Hooke did a lot of early research on springs, leading to spring powered clocks and balance wheel (non-pendulum) clocks. This finally made compact clocks and watches possible. Largely connected with his work on pendulum clock he did a lot of the earlier investigation into gravity, finding that the rate of pendulum clocks varied with location and altitude. This pre-dated Newton and in the end they sort of co-operated.
  • Isaac Newton a lot of work on the properties of light. Some of his ideas seemed to be proved wrong for a time, then later found to be not so "way out". Also, his work on motion, with his "3 laws" is well known and accepted.
    But, when we get onto his work on gravity, suddenly "Falt Earther" label him as an "Alchemist" (what else was there at the time?), "FreeMason", and a lot worse!
    Then we lead to think that an "Apple falls on poor Isaac's head, and lo and behold the theory of gravity just pops out!"
    No, it was not quite that! Isaac himself wrote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." to Robert Hooke. Newton's "Theory of Gravity" was not "plucked out of the air", but the result of lots of experimental work of both Hooke and himself!

I have said too much again, but I still cannot comprehend why one group of people are quite will to take all the advantages of modern science (which simply built gradually on the work of thousands that went before!), yet deny a small section, and maliciously denigrate the small section of that historic community that that see as coming up with findings they deny!
You simply have do (carefully) trust the results of others!
On distances: when the atlas, road maps, GPS and car oddometer give close to the same answers, they are likely to be close to the correct distance.
If the GPS agrees with these other figures over land, why doubt it over the ocean. I have gone a bit further with that. I have kept a GPS on for almost (not take off and landing) the whole time on long intercontental flights and the distance does agree with what I would expect from paper maps.

[/list]

Saddam Hussein

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2016, 01:49:16 AM »
Who's attacking Newton for being an alchemist or a Freemason?  That seems like more of a Dubay-style argument than the level of discourse we encourage on this website.

Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2016, 02:38:53 AM »
"How do I know the tape is accurate?"

You simply cannot determine all this youself.

No one person in their whole lifetime can possible do all the measurements and develop all the things we take fo granted!

That is why I mentioned that perhaps a new measuring devise(s) needs to be invented.

And of course 1 person couldn't do all the world's measuring in a life time, nor could a group of people that make up a small society.

As I said, perhaps that will take some time. Perhaps the society will never "prove" to the general public the earth is flat.

You've continued to ask for a scale map that proves the earth is flat. However you are not considering the following:

Prominent members of the TFES openly and freely admit they are not certain what the model for flat earth is or should be.

If they answered every question about the flat earth map with "I don't know", I'd imagine you wouldn't even be here. It would be a little boring.

That should be very clear to you if you take an honest and open-minded approach to reviewing the information provided.

The only people here that claim to know anything absolutely definitive about the shape of the earth are the RE'ers.

And those same people only know what they have been taught by others. You have never done ANY of the things that you ask FE'ers to do.

You simply point to your school books as if anyone here has not learned the same material. Sorry, thats not proof either.


*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2016, 02:52:48 AM »
Who's attacking Newton for being an alchemist or a Freemason?  That seems like more of a Dubay-style argument than the level of discourse we encourage on this website.
I apologise. I have not seen it on this site and yes it certainly is right up Eric Dubay's alley.
And again I am fairly new on this site and I am coming to realise it is a bit better (certainly more) "policed" than "another place".
In many places (again, probably not here),
I have seen the "conspiracy" starting right back BC some time, and certainly including Ptolemy, Copernicus, (Brahe might escape, he was still a geocentrist), Kepler, Galileo, Newton (Hooke1 probably escapes - even though a lot of early work on gravity was his) and poor old Henry Cavendish!

Thanks for that assurance, I will feel freer to to refer to the work of these people.

1 Had Robert Hooke not dies 34 years before Newton much more of the credit for the early work on gravity may have been credited to him, but I guess Newton was the one to write it up - and they say "to the victor goes the spoils".

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2016, 03:28:58 AM »
"How do I know the tape is accurate?"
You simply cannot determine all this youself.
No one person in their whole lifetime can possible do all the measurements and develop all the things we take fo granted!
That is why I mentioned that perhaps a new measuring devise(s) needs to be invented.
And of course 1 person couldn't do all the world's measuring in a life time, nor could a group of people that make up a small society.
Why ever do we need "new measuring devise(s)", I don't have any problem with what we have. The earth has been "measured" by explorers (celestial fixes), surveyors (chains - tapes if you like, and more recently Electronically Distance Measurenent) and more recently laser methods and satellite measurement.
Quote from: Bookish Neptune
As I said, perhaps that will take some time. Perhaps the society will never "prove" to the general public the earth is flat.
You've continued to ask for a scale map that proves the earth is flat. However you are not considering the following:
Prominent members of the TFES openly and freely admit they are not certain what the model for flat earth is or should be.
Quote from: Bookish Neptune
The Flat Earth movement has been more or less active since around 1880 - still no sensible map!
And, really, if TFES "are not certain what the model for flat earth is or should be", why is there even a TFES?
If they answered every question about the flat earth map with "I don't know", I'd imagine you wouldn't even be here. It would be a little boring.
That should be very clear to you if you take an honest and open-minded approach to reviewing the information provided.
The only people here that claim to know anything absolutely definitive about the shape of the earth are the RE'ers.
And those same people only know what they have been taught by others. You have never done ANY of the things that you ask FE'ers to do.
You simply point to your school books as if anyone here has not learned the same material. Sorry, thats not proof either.

You say "only know what they have been taught by others".  No! I know what I believe because of the totallity of my own experience and what I have gleaned from reading. In fact when I went to school (yes it was a long time ago) I do not remember any "indoctrination" on any of these matters.
To me the indoctrinated ones are clearly the Flat earth supporters. The only actual observation of there own is "the earth looks flat". Everything esle about the flat earth has been told them by YouTube videos or one of the Flat earth sites!
In virtually every case I have seen (including your "Standard Geoid reference") the features of the Globe are misunderstood and grossly exaggerated.
You have obviously heard of the Neil de Grasse Tyson quote "the earth is pear-shaped".
Those completely out of context words get hammered out to the poor FE sheepies on YouTube, who just lap it up!
I have seen so many cases where a misunderstood feature of the Globe is dragged out as "evidence of a flat earth".

But, I hardly ever see any real evidence for a flat earth, except "It looks flat"!
What do I see with my own eyes!

  • The Earth looks flat - it does, it's big!
  • The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon
  • The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset
  • The sun always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset
  • The moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon
  • The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset
  • The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset
I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc,

Of the, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble explaining away all of the others with fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by ????) and on and on.

There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about strange things like aetheric whirlpools etc.

Honestly, I find the Globe Earth conforms far better to the Zetetic approach than all the imagination and guessing of any Flat earth model!