Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Thoughts on updating the FAQ
« on: September 17, 2020, 07:23:54 PM »
At some point we need to consider updating the FAQ. Since it was written the Wiki and the theories and stances involved have expanded substantially.

Brief summary of my wishlist:

EA as fundamental tenet

After many years of discussion, EA won as the FE celestial model. It's time to put it in its place as the accepted model.

Perhaps a brief description along with the context: It's an alternative way of looking at things. We can either interpret observations as light curving or that the entire earth is curving. Astronomy is inherently a pseudoscience <link> without the power of scientific certainty, and so we are relegated to comparing possible explanations for phenomena and assessing the differences between those possible explanations with our human assumptions, ideas, and limitations. If we admit that anything is possible when waking up to an unknown world, then starting with assumptions is inexcusable. Early astronomers deduced a Round Earth based on an untested axiom that light is straight over long distances. ... There is some evidence for the presence of the curving of light: <brief points> <link>

Equal time for Bi-Polar model

The bulk of the Monopole model content should be moved to a page called 'Monopole Model' like the Bi-Polar Model page. FAQ provides summary on both, images on both, with links to both. The remaining content of the FAQ, such as on airplanes and high altitude photography, would mainly contain content agnostic to both.

The celestial bodies are spheres, why isn't the Earth?

This is already in there, but make more prominent. The logic that the earth must be a sphere because the celestial bodies are spheres is only one possible interpretation. It can also be logical that all bodies need a plane of existence to exist upon or over, like all other bodies of human experience. Basketballs have a basketball court. The game Water Polo consists of a court with a flat bottom and balls which float on a medium. It does not follow because those balls are round, that the courts must also be round.  This was one of the Ancient Greek fallacies to assume that the Earth is a sphere because we see spheres in the sky <link/reference>
« Last Edit: September 18, 2020, 08:53:26 PM by Tom Bishop »


Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on updating the FAQ
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2020, 10:41:31 PM »
My two cents:
  • I agree that an EA-based celestial model is the most viable and most prolific within our society. It should be reflected as such, as long as there are no major objections from the regulars.
  • I am unconvinced that bi-polar models should be treated as equivalent to monopole models. Even outside of the FES, monopole models are hugely more popular. Bi-polar models should be given some representation, but I'm not convinced that they should be put on equal footing with monopoles.
  • I completely agree that the question of "if planets are round, why isn't the Earth?" could and should be expanded upon. Though I personally don't know the best way to go about it. Intuitively, it would make sense to me to point out that the Earth is quite unique regardless of its shape, for example in how it's the only known body to harbour intelligent life. Logically, one could use the same argument to question the existence of intelligent life: we've looked at all those planets and found none of it, so why should Earth be any different?
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


Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on updating the FAQ
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2020, 01:17:47 AM »
Regarding the EA page I would make two recommendations, from an RE perspective:
1. Clearly define and describe the terms used: especially dark energy, as this was confusing for me, coming from numerous physics and astronomy courses in university. Does the theory provided have the ability to quantify light ray path curvature at sunset to explain clouds lit from the underside?
2. Explain how the EA hypothesis fits within/ was developed from the scientific method

Other than that, keep it going. I might not agree with a ton, but the wiki is nonetheless an impressive compilation.