[skeptik]

Hi there,

I'm a pretty skeptical type of person and I have some questions to which I haven't found satisfactory answers in FE literature or productions.

First and foremost, I just want to verify that I'm correct in assuming that the primary reason for believing that the earth is flat is simply that it appears to be flat when you're standing on its surface?

I guess my difficulty with accepting any FE argument is that science is inherently trying to disprove itself on a regular basis. That's the nature of science. Scientists used to believe that disease was caused by an imbalance between your body fluids, until we discovered microscopes, which show us bacteria and viruses. We have technology that allows us to study their reproduction, and how they produce the toxins that make us feel sick. One of the founding tenets of FE seems to be that it would be a massive revelation that would embarrass scientists, so they're all part of the cover-up or believe that the earth is round dogmatically. But major revelations that disprove existing theories happen all the time in science. Scientists aren't embarrassed that they were wrong, they revel in new discovery, in learning something new about the universe. So, to discover that the earth is flat, and that there are unexplored reaches beyond the ring of ice surrounding our planet, would have the scientific community foaming at the mouth to learn what was outside that wall. Instead, the FE theory requires its proponents to believe that scientists are all either lying to protect the reputation of science, or somehow being deceived by a controlling element?

I also have a hard time reconciling the fact that there is a massive amount of disagreement in the FE community about what is beyond the boundaries of what a human could personally experience. Some believe that we are stationary, some believe we are constantly accelerating vertically, some believe the sky is a domed projection screen, some believe that the universe as described by scientists is correct except that the earth just happens to be the only known flat planet, some believe we live on an infinite plane. The introduction of a Flat Earth model, much like the theory of intelligent design, seems to introduce more questions than it answers. There is plenty of evidence that a gradual enough curve from a small or close-up perspective (for example, a ~6 foot tall human standing on the surface of a sphere nearly 132,000,000 feet in circumference) appears flat. I mean, it's hard to conceptualize an object 22 million times larger than us, we don't even have a frame of reference for what that would be like. So it makes perfect sense that your first instinct is that the earth is flat.

Where I get lost, though, is how FE theories claim that the burden of proof is still with scientists, and that any and all evidence they've presented of a round earth is somehow falsified or incorrect. Let's apply Occam's razor:

• Is it more likely that a) the scientific community, which is by its very nature, skeptical, inquisitive as a whole is presenting knowledge that they either know to be false or lack the ability or will to independently verify or b) that the scientific community has reached such a level of technology and abilities that the average individual cannot reproduce their methods (i.e., launch their own spacecraft) resulting in skeptical and distrustful people finding themselves in a situation where they cannot accept any scientific discovery
• Is it more likely that a) there is a vast amount of scientific knowledge, amassed over the last several centuries (the last five decades in particular), about the nature of the Earth, the universe and other heavenly bodies that all work using the same laws of physics and principles (spherical shapes, elliptical orbits, heliocentric star systems) or b) that the earth somehow does not conform to the observable laws of physics as explained by astrophysicists, either because everything we see in the sky is an illusion/projection of some kind or because the earth is the sole example of a flat planet or plane that we can observe (or other theory).

In order to understand FE theories better, I'd love some explanation as to how these questions are addressed by prevailing FE theories.

Please understand that I am a curious skeptic, and I'm not trying to attack any ideas or theories you may have directly. I'm sure many of you have had the same questions, and I'd love to hear the arguments that swayed you.

[Tom Bishop]

I actually believe that science proved all elements of Flat Earth Theory a long time ago. Contradicting experiments were dismissed as some sort of illusion, failing experiments and mathematical models were ignored. Models, constructs, work-arounds were made. It is possible to explain anything away, even if you have to change the nature of space and time to do it. Weird things are just left as "bizarre".

Do you think that Lorentz just randomly came up with his length contraction explanation that is currently used in Special Relativity? No. He was trying to explain away Michelson-Morley's experimental results of a stationary earth by claiming that the arm of the interferometer shrunk in size when it moved, and that's why the earth was not seen to be in motion (horizontally). Much of the weirdness of science comes from stuff like this. There is a lot of it out there.

NASA may be a hoax, but they can't control public science from finding the truth. Despite what many think, science is our biggest ally. All of the sources in the Wiki comes from traditional science. Our goal is to document the truth of science through the Wiki.

[skeptik]

Do you think that Lorentz just randomly came up with his length contraction explanation that is currently used in Special Relativity? No. He was trying to explain away Michelson-Morley's experimental results of a stationary earth by claiming that the arm of the interferometer shrunk in size when it moved, and that's why the earth was not seen to be in motion (horizontally).

But the theory that the earth was motionless based on the Michelson-Morley experiment was predicated on the existence of an "aether." In the absence of the existence of aether (of which we have no scientific evidence), Michelson-Morley's results can more accurately be explained by relativity. In fact, I was pretty disappointed that your wiki specifically omits the other two possibilities from Ronald W. Clark's Einstein biography:

The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space.... The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again.

Saying that this experiment proves that the earth sits motionless is cherry-picking possible interpretations of the experiment to fit the view that you're advocating, which is something I feel that FE theories accuse the scientific community of doing in favor of a round-earth. Additionally, if you're going to accept the results of this experiment based on the presumption that aether exists, and claim that it's proof that the earth is motionless in space, let's consider something else. The Michelson-Morely experiment would also disprove the theory that the FES wiki presents that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards at a constant rate, since that would be observable by a method used by Michelson-Morley.

It's actually very ironic that you would pick this experiment, because it's actually a fantastic example of an instance in which there was a massive upheaval in the scientific community about the nature of the universe. Rather than trying to cover it up, or insisting that aether still had to exist despite all evidence to the contrary, the scientific community as a whole adopted the consequences of this upheaval, and it opened new doors of discovery. To me, that's proof that if scientists at large believed the earth was flat, it would be groundbreaking, and hailed as a new beginning for discovery of the nature of an infinite plane, or orbiting disc, or whatever the reality happened to be.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually the Wiki describes those illusions that explain the MM experiment elsewhere in the article. Nothing is left out. You are claiming that an illusion is occuring. That's exactly what I just said was happening in science to explain failed experiments.

Not even consistent illusions. Look at the Sagnac Effect. The Sagnac Experiment is the same experiment on a rotating turntable.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

From a paper on the Sagnac Effect we read:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/492804/files/0103091.pdf

  “ Since its discovery at the beginning of the XX century the Sagnac effect [1] has play an important role in the understanding and development of fundamental physics (for a review see [2]). The Sagnac effect is the dependence of the interference pattern of the rotating interferometer on the direction and speed of rotation. This phenomenon is universal and manifested for any kind of waves, including the matter waves and has found a variety of applications for the practical purposes and in the fundamental physics [2].

...In the context of the Sagnac effects the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is also not clear. Applying the same logic to Sun centered rotating frame in which Earth is fixed, one would expect different light speeds as seen from Earth. ”

[skeptik]

I'm not sure what "illusions" you're referring to, could you please explain further?

In the context of the Sagnac effects the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is also not clear. Applying the same logic to Sun centered rotating frame in which Earth is fixed, one would expect different light speeds as seen from Earth.

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that this excerpt is from an explanation of "some misunderstandings" regarding the Sagnac effect. I agree that it's kind of difficult to distinguish, since English is clearly not the authors' first language, and there is a paragraph break, but in reading the rest of the article, it provides context that shows that the authors are specifically disproving any perceived inconsistency. At the end of the article, the authors explicitly state that the perceived inconsistency between Michelson-Morley and Sagnac can be explained with an understanding of Coriolis force. That, in fact, is the crux and point of the article itself.

Again, your choice of scientific principles to use to try to prove that the earth is stationary is actually pretty ironic, considering the amount of attention Bob Knodel's laser gyroscope's experiment got for accidentally providing evidence that the earth is rotating. Ring laser gyros are one of the most common uses of the Sagnac effect in practical application.

Ultimately, even if there were inconsistencies between the behavior of light and its expected behavior given a rotating Earth, I'm not sure how that justifies a leap to an entirely flat earth. It might simply tell us that we don't understand the behavior of light. At most, it throws into question the heliocentric model, but even a stationary round planet would make more sense, given what we know about physics, than a flat one.

Incidentally, I'm curious to know what your personal favored FE model is, and how you arrived at it. Infinite plane? Firmament dome? Accelerating disc?

[Tom Bishop]

"It only seems that way because of coriolis effect" = attempted invocation of illusions and mechanisms to explain an undesired experiment. The problem is acknowledged and imagination, not demonstration, is used to try and fix it.

It's not just the Sagnac experiment that seems to contradict Special Relativity. There are a whole bunch of experiments.

https://digilander.libero.it/VNereo/r-a-monti-theory-of-relativity-a-critical-analysis.pdf

29. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

 Einsteinian relativity seems to be a physical theory of limited experimental validity on the basis
of at least 12 different experimental tests, which seem to disprove its two postulates. Further tests
that may disprove the theory of relativity are conceivable (new electromagnetic measurements of
the speed of light, a modified Kennedy-Thorndike experiment).

The difficulty in dealing with the scientific matter of "the coming of relativity" is not due to a lack
of scientific argumentation or experiment. These, in my opinion, already indicate that the theory is
in trouble. The real difficulty seems to be that relativity is not a scientific question, but an academic
subject. Many scientists work in research programs concerned with relativistic astronomy and
astrophysics, relativistic cosmology, relativistic gravitational antennas, relativistic scientific, and
popular literature

All of these will need to be explained away with illusions as well.

When you start mumbling "it only seems that way because of XYZ" you are invoking illusions and are not providing valid evidence.

It is amusing that you claim that you are more proficient in science and yet prefer imagination over fact.

Michelson-Morley and its contradicting experiments are emperical fact. The numerous excuses in science to explain MM and any experiment which contradicts it is not emperical. Surely you see that there is a difference between an emperical experiment and an excuse to try and explain it.

Other than a way to explain why the earth is still, where else were those Special Relativity excuses demonstrated? Lorentz's length contraction? Where is that demonstrated? Nowhere. Solely used to explain undesired  experiments. And apparently not supported in any other way by other light experiments.

If is demonstrated nowhere then it is not science. Why would anyone want to support an idea that was demonstrated nowhere? Quite embarrassing, in my opinion.

[skeptik]

The discovery of new forces or behaviors of matter and energy necessitate new explanations and new terms for those forces. It’s not an “illusion” when it’s a reproducible and peer-reviewed effect with a mathematical explanation. I’m not saying “it seems that way” I’m saying “it is that way and now we know why.”

Tom, I’m frankly disappointed that you’re ignoring large portions of my arguments, and instead trying to pin the focus on criticisms of relativity. Even if there were issues with General or Special relativity, my original question that I posed has nothing to do with relativity. Trying to poke holes in relativity does not translate to explaining why a flat earth model is a better explanation for what we can observe than a round earth model.

You also have not rebutted my point about the discovery that all science relying on the existence of an “aether” was willingly thrown out and rethought by the scientific community, proving that they are willing to accept upheaval.

You did not refute that a ring laser gyro showed a rotating planet.

You did not refute that proving that theearth is stationary does not make a flat earth any more likely than a globe earth in a geocentric model.

Also, I don’t believe I’ve claimed  to be proficient in science, especially not astrophysics. I’m simply reading about the phenomena you’re telling me about from your wiki, the sources you’ve sent me (one of which directly contradicts what you used it to support) and other sources readily available online. I’m a skeptic and an amateur scientist, just like everyone on these boards, and I just came here to hear some actual evidence to make me really consider an FE model. Instead, you’ve simply tried to disprove relativity in an effort to discredit science, and in your last response, took to ad hominem attacks, characterizing me as “mumbling” and “amusing.” I’m disappointed.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't matter if the author used an excuse to try and explain it. Of course they are going to try to explain experiments that contradict their science. The quote shows from a traditional source that the problem is acknowledged. Light is changing velocity in the Sagnac Experiment and other experiments, and that is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Flat Earth is a better model because it doesn't need most of these illusions. "Things shrink when they move and it's only an illusion that the earth seems still when light moves horizontally" is unneeded. It's not just relativity. It is many other things as well.

Flat Earth Theory, and Zeteticism, is a movement of emperical inquiry. We are empericists. We did look into the Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment, and we found no direct or emperical evidence that it was actually detecting motion beneath it. There is an article in the General Physics section of the Wiki. In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims.

We have higher standards for science than most people.

[stack]

We did look into the Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment and we found no direct or emperical evidence that it was actually detecting motion beneath it.

When you say we looked into it, do you mean when Globebusters did? Because Knodel seemed to find the opposite under his empirical observations.

[skeptik]

See the problem is there seems to be a cherry picking of evidence when it comes to what you choose to acknowledge or not. There is unending evidence that the earth is round provided by satellites, photographs, astronaut accounts, etc. Your movement claims that these are ALL fake. Relativity is immaterial to this discussion when we have actual photographs of the earth’s shape.

I’m concerned that it’s not that you have “higher standards” for science, but that you only believe what you personally can reproduce on your own. At a certain point, scienctific research and experiments far out-strip what the average person can replicate on their own. We cannot build a rocket that can exit the earth’s atmosphere without the budget of a global superpower. We cannot build our own large hadron colliders. The average person can’t even understand the math behind Einstein’s theory of relativity. How can you expect to create a complete picture of the universe on your own, based on only what you can prove in your spare time? That’s not a higher standard, that is simply distrusting any source that doesn’t reinforce your chosen model of earth and the universe.

[TomFoolery]

Flat Earth is a better model because it doesn't need most of these illusions.
<snip>
Flat Earth Theory, and Zeteticism, is a movement of emperical inquiry.
<snip>
 In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims.

We have higher standards for science than most people.

And as part of these higher standards for science, we do experiments for ourselves, to prove things for ourselves rather than just believing others.
I recently performed an experiment to confirm that gravity doesn't exist.

You can see my videos and efforts here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183961#msg183961

Unfortunately, I found some strange non-magnetic non-electric attraction between my lead weights.
But it can't be gravity because we know empirically that gravity doesn't exist, so it must be some other strange unknown force. We can call it the Foolery force.
Maybe we can solve light bending by combining the Foolery force and the Bishop constant.

[skeptik]

But it can't be gravity because we know empirically that gravity doesn't exist

From this I get the impression that you’re trolling FEers. I understand that impulse, but I’m trying to legitimately engage in a scientific discussion. I’ve actually learned quite a bit about relativity and the behavior of light from my research to facilitate discussion with Tom.

If I’m misjudging your intentions, I apologize, but it does seem obvious that the most simple explanation is that you have, in fact, proven the existence of gravity. So what empirical evidence could you possibly have that disproves it still when you’ve see its effects with your own eyes through your own experimentation?

If you’re trolling I admire your commitment to the bit. If you’re not, I very much respect your earnestness and your inquisitive mindset.

[Tom Bishop]

See the problem is there seems to be a cherry picking of evidence when it comes to what you choose to acknowledge or not. There is unending evidence that the earth is round provided by satellites, photographs, astronaut accounts, etc. Your movement claims that these are ALL fake. Relativity is immaterial to this discussion when we have actual photographs of the earth’s shape.

We do consider that to be evidence. We also consider the video of astronauts on wire support to also be evidence.

Usually when we talk about these subjects it is you guys screaming "some kind of illuuuuuusion!!!" in nearly every topic.

Just like you did with MM. "Illuuuuuusion!!" 

All FE'ers did believe in NASA and ball earth for most of our lives. We have just seen enough of the nonsense. You can spend months researching these topics and seeing all of the excuses and illusions needed. There just can't be hundreds of inexplicable and undemonstrated illusions everywhere.

Again, we generally have very high standards and when we see someone screaming "illusion" we see that as a failing argument. It doesn't matter if it is Einstein himself.

[stack]

What were the results of your RLG experiment and what high standards were applied?

[TomFoolery]

But it can't be gravity because we know empirically that gravity doesn't exist

From this I get the impression that you’re trolling FEers. I understand that impulse, but I’m trying to legitimately engage in a scientific discussion. I’ve actually learned quite a bit about relativity and the behavior of light from my research to facilitate discussion with Tom.

If I’m misjudging your intentions, I apologize, but it does seem obvious that the most simple explanation is that you have, in fact, proven the existence of gravity. So what empirical evidence could you possibly have that disproves it still when you’ve see its effects with your own eyes through your own experimentation?

If you’re trolling I admire your commitment to the bit. If you’re not, I very much respect your earnestness and your inquisitive mindset.

I will admit to being a tad frustrated.

I am not trolling. 100% of my efforts and interaction is intended to get closer to the truth in all things relating to flat earth. I'm trying to understand it inside and out. I want to be able to know what the truth is and be able to demonstrate it to anybody who doubts.

I'm sorry if I get too snippy sometimes.

The people who introduced me to flat earth are all very confident sounding. They say it all makes sense and experiments back it up and all that.
When I asked for best simple demonstrable proofs I could show my friends, they pop up right away. One says "The evidence is all around you! When you step off of a chair, what do you feel? Do you feel gravity pulling you down, or do you feel the earth coming up to meet you?" (I'm still trying to picture an adult even having that thought. It sounds like something a child would say.)
(And I mean in a way, it makes sense. During that free-fall moment, you do not feel any gravity, and are in fact weightless.)
Another says "Here is 50 pages of formulas that are ample proof." And so on and so forth.
And they have this attitude of "In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims. We have higher standards for science than most people."

And one of the long time folks here did suggest that disproving gravity between terrestrial objects was a good proof.
So I figured "Hey, I'll give it a try."

So I did try, and try hard did I.
I tried a number of different things, refining my experiment because things like air currents, magnetic fields, and static electric forces were all hampering my efforts. I ultimately ended up with something rather similar to Cavendish.
But I was stuck with an apparent attraction between my lead weights.

And did the flat earth community help me? Here I am doing the very experiments they place a high level of importance on, and what do I get?
Well, first of all, all the globers get real friendly and helpful. What the tarzan? What do they know?
Imagine going to disprove gravity and ending up looking more like you proved it. And then, on top of it, getting no help from the flat earth community!
It's like even they don't believe it themselves.
So it turns out I don't get the results that flat earth theory says I should. And my fellow flat earthers are no help.
One tells me it's all an act -- an act? because I dare experiment?
Another tells me my experiment is too rinky dink.
And Mr. Bishop tells me that experiment should only be done in controlled laboratory settings. No suggestion on how to make it better or solve my strange result or understand what is happening, just basically tell me I shouldn't be doing it at home.

Do *they* even believe it?

So yeah. I'm a tad frustrated. The very people here right now who are telling you "In our movement we value demonstration.... We have higher standards for science than most people."  are either ignoring my plight or telling me I shouldn't be doing this demonstration.

Can you understand my frustration? Doing an experiment to disprove gravity, only to have it look like you proved it, and have all your fellow flat earther's abandon you in your time of crisis?

With all this theme of "NASA is lies, we have the truth" I really expected the flat earth community to help me out, help me see what I'm doing wrong that's causing this false indication of gravity -- or if gravity exists, then to say "Hey, it looks like gravity does exist," -- but to just leave me out in the cold because I dared to experiment tells me they never believed their claims in the first place.

But I'll be fine, really. I have more experiments planned and hopefully those will be more successful in proving a flat earth.

[inquisitive]

It doesn't matter if the author used an excuse to try and explain it. Of course they are going to try to explain experiments that contradict their science. The quote shows from a traditional source that the problem is acknowledged. Light is changing velocity in the Sagnac Experiment and other experiments, and that is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Flat Earth is a better model because it doesn't need most of these illusions. "Things shrink when they move and it's only an illusion that the earth seems still when light moves horizontally" is unneeded. It's not just relativity. It is many other things as well.

Flat Earth Theory, and Zeteticism, is a movement of emperical inquiry. We are empericists. We did look into the Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment, and we found no direct or emperical evidence that it was actually detecting motion beneath it. There is an article in the General Physics section of the Wiki. In our movement we value demonstration and are generally dismissive of those who make claims without reference to demonstration or the emperical evidence to back up those claims.

We have higher standards for science than most people.

Do you have a view on the WGS-84 model that our maps are based on?

[stack]

Again, we generally have very high standards and when we see someone screaming "illusion" we see that as a failing argument. It doesn't matter if it is Einstein himself.

More on topic than off topic, relevant to your presumed 'higher standard' of empiricism that you employ to bolster your position(s). In re: your topic, "Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead?"

Ruth Ginsburg has not been seen in public for 69 days.

"The last time she was seen was on December 6, 2018, when she heard arguments in person at the Court."

The Washington Post alleges that she was at some small event about her life earlier this month the day before the SOTU, but no one who attended recalls seeing her and there are no pictures of her attending. Either way, she may be dead now. If you go to searchquarry.com and search for her name and select death record, you will find a death record for her. See #26:

https://www.searchquarry.com/namesearch/results?trackstat=sqhmpag&recordtype=Death&fname=Ruth&lname=Ginsburg&city=&state=all



Ruth Ginsburg is 85 according to her Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

Martin Ginsburg was her late husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_D._Ginsburg

Martin Ginsburg's age matches up, if he were still alive. If he was born on June 10, 1932, per his wiki article, he would be 86 years old. This is definitely her record. The location also matches up.

The website doesn't just create death records for everyone. Feel free to search for yourself.

It said Marvin, not Martin, on the only record I saw of an 85 year old Ruth Ginsburg.

I took the screenshot myself and now the entry is gone. There is clearly a conspiracy afoot.

Edit: Another report

I just looked my self up in the "Death Records" search. I was the first result. Should I be nervous?

How'd that empirical Zetetic inquiry work out for you? Conspiracy much for the sake of conspiracy?

[AlwaysTheSceptic]

And Mr. Bishop tells me that experiment should only be done in controlled laboratory settings. No suggestion on how to make it better or solve my strange result or understand what is happening, just basically tell me I shouldn't be doing it at home.

Back in the day when I was a university student, I did perform the Cavendish experiment with lead balls in a controlled environment. So, I'll confirm your result that indeed there is a force between two masses of lead. Look at that, now we have two separate experiments made, in different settings, by different operators... almost like real science. 

(Oh, by the way, it also matched/confirmed the gravitational constant.)

[skeptik]

See the problem is there seems to be a cherry picking of evidence when it comes to what you choose to acknowledge or not. There is unending evidence that the earth is round provided by satellites, photographs, astronaut accounts, etc. Your movement claims that these are ALL fake. Relativity is immaterial to this discussion when we have actual photographs of the earth’s shape.

We do consider that to be evidence. We also consider the video of astronauts on wire support to also be evidence.

Usually when we talk about these subjects it is you guys screaming "some kind of illuuuuuusion!!!" in nearly every topic.

Just like you did with MM. "Illuuuuuusion!!" 

All FE'ers did believe in NASA and ball earth for most of our lives. We have just seen enough of the nonsense. You can spend months researching these topics and seeing all of the excuses and illusions needed. There just can't be hundreds of inexplicable and undemonstrated illusions everywhere.

Again, we generally have very high standards and when we see someone screaming "illusion" we see that as a failing argument. It doesn't matter if it is Einstein himself.

You are putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing my arguments. I’m starting to understand your position though. You seem to be operating under the impression that anything that cannot be perceived by human senses is an “illusion” rather than a force we have to observe through mathematical data. It’s not that some forces (gravity, Coriolis) are made-up “illusions” that scientists come up with. They are forces that can be demonstrated and mathematically reproduced and applied in multiple contexts and experiments. Just because you choose to cherry pick interpretations and pull quotes out of context from scientific studies doesn’t mean you have found any kind of consistency. It means you either refuse to or are incapable of understanding the science.

However, take gravity for example. Your claim is that it is incontrovertible that when you step off a chair, you feel the earth rise to meet you, rather than you falling to meet the earth. I understand that that is what it feels like, however we perceive everything relative to our own powers of perception. For example, my cat, sitting 15 feet away from me, appears to be no more than a few inches tall when I close one eye. Obviously that would be the smallest cat ever, but I know from multiple interactions with my cat, that it is much larger than that. Just like we can perceive and calculate the effects of gravity when we successfully calculate the tides, or the seasons, or an eclipse, or the movement of planets, etc, etc. Saying that what the world at large calls gravity is the earth rising to meet us is like that my cat shrinks when it gets further from me. It’s absurd on its face. These aren’t “illusions,” they’re simply phenomena that have to be perceived by more than just what they “seem like” to the human senses.

In any case, you’re mischaracterizing my tone by saying that I’m “screaming” and clearly adopting an air of condescension rather than actually engage in a discussion that centers around the actual evidence. Again, I’m disappointed. Your forum claims to welcome a debate, and your wiki denounces ad homenim attacks, yet you’ve done little apart from mischaracterize evidence of relativity and claim that I was first “mumbling” then “screaming.” I’m not particularly interested in pursuing this discussion further with you, but I wish you the best. Maybe you’ll be more receptive and courteous to other skeptics in the future.

[AATW]

Again, we generally have very high standards and when we see someone screaming "illusion" we see that as a failing argument.

Like this dude did?

When the first photographs of the earth were published early in the early years of spaceflight, Shenton dismissed them as an optical illusion caused by a wide-angle lens which made the earth seem curved when it was not

https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Shenton

And this page

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Is basically one big "it's an illusion" that the sun appears the same size despite it's varying distance. We've been through that before, it's glare.
I notice that when you claimed "The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size." you ignored my reply and manicminer's evidence that no, they don't:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13707.msg184167#msg184167

The planets do change angular size in a measurable way, if not a discernible one.

You claim to have high standards but it's notable how different those standards are depending on what's being claimed. If it's something Rowbotham said you accept it on faith and feel no need to repeat or verify any of his work despite calling yourself empiricists. If it's something which shows FE to be wrong you wriggle and wriggle and explain away the result and do anything other than accept you may be mistaken.