[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I think that this is very interesting, even from a RET point of view. I would like to see something come of this. I have a copy of ENaG on my Kindle, which I am also using to type this entry. In spite of my considerable disagreements with Parallax, I still find his book very interesting, and would love to contribute to an activity such as this.

I think that ENaG deserves to NOT be an obscure book. It has had influence, albeit more in the 19th Century than now. But even today, people do read it. Hell, indirectly, you've even got the President referring to you. Parallax is responsible for that. His book is worth preserving for that reason.

So, hey: what can I do? & NO debates here, about religion, flat earth, politics, or anything else. Keep it civil, folks.

[Tom Bishop]

You can contribute to whatever topic you have interest in. There is a lot to talk about. I can't tell you to dig up some dirt on Wherner Von Braun so we can make a section defaming him. You have to be passionate about that on your own.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Very well. I shall  do some research and see what  like, and then get back to you.

[Tom Bishop]

If you come up with a topic you are interested in I would be happy to give my comments on what I think needs to be talked about and researched regarding that topic.

[Dionysios]

I think that this is very interesting...

You can contribute to whatever topic you have interest in. ... I can't tell you to dig up some dirt on Wherner Von Braun so we can make a section defaming him.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Hey Tom. I think it would be interesting to review the ENaG text, and to review all scriptural quotes, and explore them thoroughly, and see how Rowbotham was using them to defend his idea of Flat Earth. I could also explore possibly some of the other quotes that he used as well. But I would start with the Scripture first. What do you think?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Hey, TOM, you there?

[Dionysios]

Hey Tom. I think it would be interesting to review the ENaG text, and to review all scriptural quotes, and explore them thoroughly, and see how Rowbotham was using them to defend his idea of Flat Earth. I could also explore possibly some of the other quotes that he used as well. But I would start with the Scripture first. What do you think?

I think it's a good idea. This article might point out a few verses for starters:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

[Tom Bishop]

Hey Tom. I think it would be interesting to review the ENaG text, and to review all scriptural quotes, and explore them thoroughly, and see how Rowbotham was using them to defend his idea of Flat Earth. I could also explore possibly some of the other quotes that he used as well. But I would start with the Scripture first. What do you think?

That sounds fine to me. In my opinion the bible probably does suggest a Flat Earth: http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

[DSC]

Whatever happened with this book? Is it in progress, been published? I am genuinely interested in how this project developed, albeit 2 1/2 years later.

[Tom Bishop]

Whatever happened with this book? Is it in progress, been published? I am genuinely interested in how this project developed, albeit 2 1/2 years later.

Its still in progress. I work on it now and then. It's going to take a long time to create a book of this magnitude. If you would like to help out and write about whatever topic you are interested in I would appreciate it.

[JohnAdams1145]

Background: This section provides a background on the topic. It should be assumed that the reader knows nothing about earth science and needs to be brought up to speed on what the RET theory states before launching into FET.

I don't believe the background should contain what RE theory states; this & the rebuttals should be addressed in the Q&A and Theory sections. There's a known psychological phenomenon known as the backfire effect, and if you're just an inkling wrong about what RE states, many readers pre-disposed to RE (99.9% of the Earth's population) will simply stop reading critically and block out what FE has to say. The main attractiveness of FE is its seemingly simple explanations for things apparently over-rationalized and over-explained in RE; focusing on a point-by-point rebuttal simply draws attention to the flawed scientific method. The basic observations and principles should be stated in the background, and then the derivation of FE should come straight afterward.

It's important to not fall into the trap that Rowbotham fell into; a scientific theory should stand on its own in explanation without invoking the flaws of another. Then once the FE theory has been established, one can examine the different predictive differences and then argue why FE should supersede RE.

Zetetic vs Theoretic

It would be helpful to change this title to "Zetetic Method vs. Scientific Method", as the backfire effect applies. Misusing the term theoretic in the scientific sense will make readers close their minds. Besides, a novice reader wouldn't know what "theoretic" means in the context of this debate.

I'd be happy to spend 2-3 hours per week writing about FE if it makes the claims clearer and sets them in an easy reference.  I'm afraid however, that, as a globe-tard, I can't get the specifics right.