[Tom Bishop]

Empiricism is a view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced. The tenets of empiricism promotes a back to the basics approach to knowledge, where theoretical concepts are scrutinized for their applicability to the real world. Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.

In order for a concept to be empirical it must be testable. That is, it cannot exist only in hypothesis or idea. A concept which is completely hypothetical, existing mainly in the imagination, is unemperical. Let us consider the following.

Our Environment

FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Gravitation

FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

[Rayzor]

Empiricism is a view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced. The tenets of empiricism promotes a back to the basics approach to knowledge, where theoretical concepts are scrutinized for their applicability to the real world. Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.

In order for a concept to be empirical it must be testable. That is, it cannot exist only in hypothesis or idea. A concept which is completely hypothetical, existing mainly in the imagination, is unemperical. Let us consider the following.

Our Environment

FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Gravitation

FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Good post.   I agree with the philosophy,  although I'd argue about some of your examples.   

I'd probably argue the gravity is testable, and point to microgravity variations as evidence against universal acceleration.   As to helicentric vs geocentric,  there is a mechanical equivalence  between the two world views,  just a matter of where you choose the origin of the co-ordinate system.  So not easily testable,  you need to look deeper to things like global weather patterns.

[Lonesome Crow]

microgravity variations as evidence against universal acceleration.

Could such variations be caused by slight flaws in the equipment used for measuring purposes? Or, perhaps Universal Acceleration is slightly negated depending on the thickness of the Earth in certain areas? Something along those lines, anyway.

And, of course, Universal Acceleration is just one possibility.

[AMann]

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable
[/quote]

Horrible argument with points made with a biased viewpoint and a closed-mind to what evidence and testability actually is...

Our Environment

"FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable"
False. Looking out the window (assuming you are not looking into hills and mountains) shows a horizon that ends at a specific distance that is variable to your elevation. It does not extend forever and it is measurable.

"RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable"
Testing the roundness of the Earth is as simple as measuring shadows at different locations at the same time. This shadow experiment is a common high school physics experiment and has been performed at various locations around the world. Testable.
You could also turn a telescope towards the horizon. If the Earth was flat, you would be able to see further with the aid of the telescope. You however find that the distance you can see doesn't change, the objects only appear larger. Testable

Gravitation

"FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable"
That is an inconclusive test. It tells you that either there is an attraction between you and the ground or that the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate equal to the force of gravity. It does not conclude one over the other.

"RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable"
Physics is still working on ways to test for graviton particles. But that doesn't mean that gravity itself isn't testable. We can see the effects of gravity beyond the simply falling to the ground.
Objects weigh less the further from the ground they are. This is because greater distances between objects weakens their attraction. We even have a mathematical equation that gives us a relationship of the force of gravity as a measure of distance and the masses of the objects. This is one of the laws of gravitation.
Testable

Movement of the earth

"FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable"
Another inconclusive test. It would show either that the Earth was still and everything else moves or that the Earth is moving.

"RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable"
To be fair, the other celestial bodies are moving as well. And yes, we have the observational evidence to show this. But just worrying about the Earth, ancient attempts to map out various celestial objects around a stationary Earth proved that it wasn't so simple to make everything revolve around the Earth. They could do it with the stars, but planets were a problem. Simply making the planets revolve around the Sun does not eliminate all the inconsistancies... it only enhances them when trying to explain the difference in movements of the planets closer to the Sun than Earth and the ones further away.
We can observe the apparent changes in the tilt from away the sun as seasons change. Moving the Sun to compensate throws off the orbits of the planets, which we know doesn't happen.
Time zones are also a great way to show the movement of the Earth. Moving the Sun instead only leads to more problems due to planets appearing not to revolve around the Sun...

[Rama Set]

Our Environment

FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

This is not really a test because how can you tell it is extending farther than the eye can see?  How can you tell if it is a curve, concave or convex, that is so slight that you cannot perceive it at the limits of your vision?

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

You are being extremely dishonest here. There are many reasonable tests for the Earth being curved.  In fact many of the tests that you use to support a FE could just as easily support a RE e.g. the BLE.

Gravitation

FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable

The equivalence principle tells us that this would not distinguish the two.  This is not a test of the UA.

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

You create a false dichotomy here: either gravity is true and there are gravitons or gravity is false and there are no gravitons.  You neglect other possibilities such as the Standard Model being incorrect.

Movement of the earth

FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

More of the same here.  You would have to deny relativity for either of these examples to be valid.  I sincerely hope that you are not denying Galilean relativity.

[Theguru]

"RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable"


The laser beam experiment on the Pontchartrain Causeway that I described is an attempt to calculate the curvature of a large standing body of water and therefore the earth. So therefore, as per my experiment, it is testable.
Please retract the above quote Tom

[magic]

Tom,
I agree with everything except the FET gravitation portion as it is not evidence enough of Earth's upward movement.

[markjo]

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Actually, that's just one model of gravitation.  Another model predicts that mass affects space-time by warping it resulting in gravitation.  This has several predictable and observable effects, such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves (observations of which have just recently been confirmed).

[Rama Set]

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Actually, that's just one model of gravitation.  Another model predicts that mass affects space-time by warping it resulting in gravitation.  This has several predictable and observable effects, such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves (observations of which have just recently been confirmed).

And time dilation, don't forget time dilation.

[Rounder]

Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.

What about YOU, Tom: do YOU believe this?

[Unsure101]

Empiricism is a view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced. The tenets of empiricism promotes a back to the basics approach to knowledge, where theoretical concepts are scrutinized for their applicability to the real world. Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.

I have observed the size of the sun and moon. They do not change size other than at respective rise and set.
If the earth is flat and these celestial bodies are only a few miles up, their apparent size should deviate throughout the day/night.

I have observed the moon in the same phase all night.
If the earth is flat and the moon and sun rotate about the north pole every 24 hours, the moon phase should change throughout the night.

I have never seen the sun appear as anything other than a circle. This means it is always pointing at my location or is a sphere.
If the earth is flat and:
- The sun is a sphere, it will cast light on all points of the earth at all times.
- The sun is a disc pointing at my location, it cannot "set".
- The sun is a focal point pointing at my location, it cannot "set".

I have observed the sun sink behind the horizon as a circle.
If the earth is flat, this is not possible (see above point).

I have never observed celestial gears, shadow moons, the firmament or NASA guards on the ice wall.

All of these observations lead me to believe in a round earth model as they are all explainable using said model.


Then again, I have never observed any part of America, and therefore must conclude that it doesn't exist. All video, pictures and people from America must be fake, in on a conspiracy, or both...

[markjo]

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Actually, that's just one model of gravitation.  Another model predicts that mass affects space-time by warping it resulting in gravitation.  This has several predictable and observable effects, such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves (observations of which have just recently been confirmed).

And time dilation, don't forget time dilation.

As I recall, frame dragging has been observed as well.

[Rounder]

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Incorrect.  This claim is eminently testable, and it is ironic (best case), hypocritical (middle case), or flatly dishonest (worst case) for YOU of all people to claim otherwise when the BISHOP EXPERIMENT is the very test one needs!  While I remain unconvinced by the results obtained by FE proponents in the Bishop Experiment, the fact that a test exists at all means the RE position is, in fact, TESTABLE.

As to why I am unconvinced: temperature inversion is a common atmospheric phenomenon in the Monterey area.  This creates the potential for refraction to extend the visibility of objects beyond the horizon.  The fact that the observation must be conducted "On a very clear and chilly day" is a clear indication of what is going on there.

Contrast with the Chicago version of the experiment, looking across Lake Michigan:


And the Toronto version, looking across Lake Ontario:

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Incorrect.  This claim is eminently testable, and it is ironic (best case), hypocritical (middle case), or flatly dishonest (worst case) for YOU of all people to claim otherwise when the BISHOP EXPERIMENT is the very test one needs!  While I remain unconvinced by the results obtained by FE proponents in the Bishop Experiment, the fact that a test exists at all means the RE position is, in fact, TESTABLE.

As to why I am unconvinced: temperature inversion is a common atmospheric phenomenon in the Monterey area.  This creates the potential for refraction to extend the visibility of objects beyond the horizon.  The fact that the observation must be conducted "On a very clear and chilly day" is a clear indication of what is going on there.

Contrast with the Chicago version of the experiment, looking across Lake Michigan:


And the Toronto version, looking across Lake Ontario:

What is this attempting to show?

[Woody]

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Incorrect.  This claim is eminently testable, and it is ironic (best case), hypocritical (middle case), or flatly dishonest (worst case) for YOU of all people to claim otherwise when the BISHOP EXPERIMENT is the very test one needs!  While I remain unconvinced by the results obtained by FE proponents in the Bishop Experiment, the fact that a test exists at all means the RE position is, in fact, TESTABLE.

As to why I am unconvinced: temperature inversion is a common atmospheric phenomenon in the Monterey area.  This creates the potential for refraction to extend the visibility of objects beyond the horizon.  The fact that the observation must be conducted "On a very clear and chilly day" is a clear indication of what is going on there.

Contrast with the Chicago version of the experiment, looking across Lake Michigan:


And the Toronto version, looking across Lake Ontario:

What is this attempting to show?

Seriously?  You are unable to see the further away from Chicago the pictures where taken you can see less of the Sears Tower?  You did not notice that the shorter structures closer to the camera's position were not visible in some of the pictures?

Empiricism is a view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced. The tenets of empiricism promotes a back to the basics approach to knowledge, where theoretical concepts are scrutinized for their applicability to the real world. Many believe that only empirical knowledge should be considered truth, as anything less is a diversion into fantasy and conjecture.

In order for a concept to be empirical it must be testable. That is, it cannot exist only in hypothesis or idea. A concept which is completely hypothetical, existing mainly in the imagination, is unemperical. Let us consider the following.

Our Environment

FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. - Untestable

Gravitation

FET predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer - Testable

RET predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FET predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RET predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Are you sure the things you say are untestable can not be tested or is it you do not like the conclusion that come from the observations?

Lets take the size of the Earth being convenient for example.  Are you saying distances can not be measured?  The curvature can be measured with surveying equipment.  It can be measured by simple observations like how far you can see something at different heights. 

Part of testing a hypothesis is looking objectively at the things that show it is wrong.  Take those things and collectively look at them.  Things like pictures, planets in retrograde, tides that occur relative to the position of the moon and sun, stars' visibility and angle from the horizon at different locations, Mercury and and Venus transit between Earth and the sun being observed, ISS and satellites being observable, sun sets, lunar phases, eclipses, seeing further the higher you are, being able to determine latitude using a Foucault pendulum, etc.

Here is one observation you can make that is coming up 09May2016 from 11:12 am to 6:42 pm UT.  The exact time you can observe will vary +/- 2 minutes depending on location.  Something will transit between the sun and Earth.  That something is Mercury according to the RE model. 

If it happens at the time predicted it is a validation of the RE model and something you should take in consideration.

[Rounder]

The Mercury transit is not as powerful as you would hope.  You and I both know the RE explanation, and consider it to be proof.  However, because these transits occur in a regular, repeatable schedule, one need not know or believe RE to predict the next one.  One only needs to know the pattern.  For all an FE knows it might be a bug crawling across a light bulb, and that bug arriving on schedule does nothing to disprove that theory, it merely "proves" that the bug hasn't slowed down. 

We can, however, get some good from the event.  I imagine that schools all over the world will be attempting to observe the event.  If elevation measurements and times are recorded from far-away places, it can be shown that the distance to Sun calculated from those angles will yeied different results for different city pairs if done under FE conditions, but will yield the same results for different city pairs if done under RE conditions.  Hey look: TESTABLE!!

[Rounder]

What is this attempting to show?

In case anybody was wondering, FE responses like this one are the reason RE participants wonder if you are all just trolling us.  You claim to be straight-up honest believers, you claim to have thought things out, we take you at face value and engage you in good-faith discussions....and then you claim to not understand what is being shown in a quite obvious set of pictures.  The failure to understand this illustration does not square with the mental acuity otherwise required to participate in these debates.  This leads us to wonder if you are sincere, or just having a laugh.  I am not accusing you of trolling; I'm just pointing out an example of why you get accused.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

No, it was a legitimate question made out of curiosity. Is it a mirage or is it actual objects we see? Is it trying to show the curvature of earth is what's blocking the bottom of the buildings?

Either way it's interesting for a number of reasons, but mainly because it shows that the earth must be bigger than we're lead to believe, because the original analysis of the photos was to show something that should be impossible to see based on the calculation of the curvature based on a 25000km circumference.

[rabinoz]

No, it was a legitimate question made out of curiosity. Is it a mirage or is it actual objects we see? Is it trying to show the curvature of earth is what's blocking the bottom of the buildings?

Either way it's interesting for a number of reasons, but mainly because it shows that the earth must be bigger than we're lead to believe, because the original analysis of the photos was to show something that should be impossible to see based on the calculation of the curvature based on a 25000km circumference.

• The circumference is close to 40,000 km, not 25,000 km.
• While it is only a rough estimate, typical refraction (yes, dirty word!) is normally allowed for by taking 4/3 times the radius. This is the figure used in microwave link range estimates, so is an average may not apply close to the water surface.

Something is surely blocking the view of the base of those buildings. I don't know how an effective radius of about 8,500 km would affect your answer. Remember to allow for the height of the observer.

I know that only one, or even a few cases does not prove the case, but alos remember that ships lookout for centuries have used the visible horizon distance to estimate the range of other ships and land. This is from a USN Handbook (Yes, I guess they are part of the conspiracy!)

RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them
with your estimated range. 

HEIGHT OF EYE	RANGE TO	HORIZON
FEET	YARDS	MILES
20	10,200	5.1
40	14,400	7.2
60	17,800	8.9
80	20,600	10.3

Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table

The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the
horizon.  Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because
the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).

At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8
miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles).  Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined. 
 

Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them? 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I meant 25,000 miles... But anyway, what does the shape of earth have to do with viewing distances? The perspective effect would be the same and that chart has no mention of curvature at all. One thing round earth fails to rectify is the fact the horizon is always level center no matter how high you go. At no point do you look down to see it. Any computer simulation of a sphere, no matter how big, and a rising camera results in the "horizon" dropping.