I'm not trying to be flip here, I'm asking the FE believers to do something difficult.  That is to examine why you believe something.
It is clear (as can be seen in other threads on this very site) that no FE theory explains the observations of our world that any of us can make and we haven't even gotten into the vast amount of more technical scientific data and fundamental physics theory around gravitation, relativity, etc.  If you do not accept that, and use that as your main reason, that's fine (let me know) but please do not use this thread to debate the scientific viability of FE, there are other threads dealing with that.  Plus of course there is the impossible level of conspiracy a FE view requires.

So if you are a FE believer, how did you come to this point of view?   Can you recall when you first started to think this way and why?

Beyond that why do you continue to believe it?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 06:51:46 PM by ichoosereality »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
It was quite the journey. First, I accepted that it was possible that the authorities could be lying to us for some reason. Next, I decided that a FE was possible. Finally, after much internal struggle, I came to the shocking conclusion that a FE was probable.

My process:

1. In 2007 when not much information was available on the topic my first goal was to find out as much about FE as I could. I purchased a copy of Earth Not a Globe and read it from cover to cover with captivation. It was very engaging. These days you would probably be better off reading our Wiki for more modern information, but ENAG still has unsurpassed commentary.

2. My next goal was to decide if FE was possible, independent of any argument someone might have in favor of it (ie. Rowbotham might have gotten some stuff wrong, but this would be irrelevant to actual the shape of the Earth, so you would have to decide for yourself). This was done for me through debate and discussion. The RE arguments were fairly weak when assessed critically and couldn't preclude the possibility of a FE. Seek further evidence, or ask a question against the narrative, and it all falls apart.

3. My final goal was to decide if FE was probable. To do this I went through all of the topics and compared the RE explanation to the FE possibility. I decided that there were a lot of coincidental things and insufficient RE explanations, such that the whiteboard of FE possibility won out in the end. Each of the subjects discussed in the Wiki is a letter. The letters spell out a sentence. The sentence is: THE EARTH IS FLAT

It shouldn't be possible to think that a FE is possible, yet it is. Physical science should be absolutely contradictory to an FE, yet it's not. There should be no cherries to pick, no physicists to cite, and nothing to give sway to these positions, yet there is plenty of evidence in their favor.

Whenever I post a wiki link the weak arguments against it are 'cherry picking!' and 'bias!', and not actual contradictory evidence which completely devastates it. Simply put, this complete lack of an argument means that we won the argument. It's all pretty boring now. The main thing the RE have going for them in support of their arguments is their personal incredulity, which only erodes as the years pass and additional data is collected.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2021, 01:32:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

It was quite the journey. First, I accepted that it was possible that the authorities could be lying to us for some reason. Next, I decided that a FE was possible. Finally, after much internal struggle, I came to the shocking conclusion that a FE was probable.
Thanks Tom.  Now for a few questions:

Do you recall what lead you to even ask if "authorities" had been lying about space exploration for the past 70 years?   I assume you grew up accepting the RE.  Its also not just "the authorities".
This vast deception would have to include 100s of thousands of scientists and engineers in physics, cosmology, space industries, etc.  Even ignoring the why, how could that be possible?

2. My next goal was to decide if FE was possible, independent of any argument someone might have in favor of it
I do not know what this means.   You seem to want to use science in some areas but then ignore it for others.  To me that can not work.  Science is a methodology, not an ideology.
If it works for figuring out atomic interactions (which you are using at this moment to read this) then it works for figuring out planetary interactions.  Mistakes are of course made and you can always question a result but over the long haul the methodology works amazingly well (its really the only way we have to find out about the world).  Why would it work in some physical (hard science) domains but not others?

The RE arguments were fairly weak when assessed critically and couldn't preclude the possibility of a FE. Seek further evidence, or ask a question against the narrative, and it all falls apart.
It seems to me that there are threads on this very site that clearly show what we observe is perfectly explained by a RE and can not be explained by a FE.  That is how science works (Bayesian reasoning).

The main thing the RE have going for them in support of their arguments is their personal incredulity, which only erodes as the years pass and additional data is collected.
I can understand how folks get annoyed with FE arguments (frankly they are silly), but to say that the RE arguments are weak because of this reaction is simply wrong as I see it (agin looking even at this site).
The only reason I stopped by this site is that it is so clear FE is wrong, I wanted to understand how/why people ever accept it.  If people can be mislead on something so clear, in what other areas can they be lead astray?
What additional data has been collected that supports a FE?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Do you recall what lead you to even ask if "authorities" had been lying about space exploration for the past 70 years?   I assume you grew up accepting the RE.  Its also not just "the authorities".

The fact that there is no reason to trust them in the first place is a start.

Here is a meme for you:



Quote from: ichoosereality
This vast deception would have to include 100s of thousands of scientists and engineers in physics, cosmology, space industries, etc.  Even ignoring the why, how could that be possible?

Or, they are actually detecting a FE in their experiments and have an array of adjunct theories to explain what the science equipment reports.

See: tfes.org wiki

Quote from: ichoosereality
I do not know what this means.   You seem to want to use science in some areas but then ignore it for others.  To me that can not work.  Science is a methodology, not an ideology.
If it works for figuring out atomic interactions (which you are using at this moment to read this) then it works for figuring out planetary interactions.  Mistakes are of course made and you can always question a result but over the long haul the methodology works amazingly well (its really the only way we have to find out about the world).  Why would it work in some physical (hard science) domains but not others?

Well, it doesn't work for either atomic interactions or planetary interactions. The three body problem applies to particle physics and astronomy - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote from: ichoosereality
It seems to me that there are threads on this very site that clearly show what we observe is perfectly explained by a RE and can not be explained by a FE.  That is how science works (Bayesian reasoning).

We've discussed all of it and it's in the Wiki. Not sure what left there is to say on the matter.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The main thing the RE have going for them in support of their arguments is their personal incredulity, which only erodes as the years pass and additional data is collected.
I can understand how folks get annoyed with FE arguments (frankly they are silly), but to say that the RE arguments are weak because of this reaction is simply wrong as I see it (agin looking even at this site).

Incredulity is a weak argument. It is certainly not a strong argument.

Quote from: ichoosereality
What additional data has been collected that supports a FE?

See the Wiki.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2021, 02:48:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Here is a meme for you:

IMG

Droll, routinely trotted out in all seriousness by flatties on YouTube, but without a relevant point.

It's got nothing to do with the American Government, and even less to do with NASA.

First modern-day measures to determine the circumference of the Earth and set us on the way to accurate mapping for navigation were done by an Englishman and a group of French, in the 1600s and 1700s. The USA barely had a functional govt at this time.

Prior to this, the Romans and others had already figured it out, just with less accuracy. 

When discussions took place to decide on a Prime Meridian for standardised timekeeping and navigation, the British and French argued between London and Paris, and the American rep simply fell into line with what had been used the most up until then; hence the Greenwich Meridian is zero degrees longitude, not Paris.

All this was done hundreds of years before NASA was even a thought in the American Govt's collective mind.

And who achieved the first orbital flight? The USSR. First man in space, first woman in space, first animal in space? USSR.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

The fact that there is no reason to trust them in the first place is a start.
There is a big difference between government pronouncements or policy and government funded science.  And you didn't answer my question (and are under no obligation to do so of course) about how you transition from (what I assume was) an acceptance of the std RE model growing up and when you started to investigate FE ideas.

Quote from: ichoosereality
This vast deception would have to include 100s of thousands of scientists and engineers in physics, cosmology, space industries, etc.  Even ignoring the why, how could that be possible?
Or, they are actually detecting a FE in their experiments and have an array of adjunct theories to explain what the science equipment reports.
This is just a cop-out and hand waving.  The observations are exactly what we would expect from a spherical earth, no "array of adjust theories" is needed.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Science is a methodology, not an ideology.
If it works for figuring out atomic interactions (which you are using at this moment to read this) then it works for figuring out planetary interactions.  Mistakes are of course made and you can always question a result but over the long haul the methodology works amazingly well (its really the only way we have to find out about the world).  Why would it work in some physical (hard science) domains but not others?

Well, it doesn't work for either atomic interactions or planetary interactions. The three body problem applies to particle physics and astronomy - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
So how do you think microelectronics came about?   All domains have unanswered questions, some even known to be unanswerable (e.g. uncertainty).  In no way do these invalidate the field of knowledge in which they are contained.

Quote from: ichoosereality
It seems to me that there are threads on this very site that clearly show what we observe is perfectly explained by a RE and can not be explained by a FE.  That is how science works (Bayesian reasoning).
We've discussed all of it and it's in the Wiki. Not sure what left there is to say on the matter.
You may view it as nothing left to say, but looking at the wiki on this site its not remotely convincing.  It seems oriented to folks who have already made up their mind and are looking for crutches to support their false views.  There are threads in this forum that are unanswered.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Incredulity is a weak argument. It is certainly not a strong argument.
You keep claiming this is the common RE argument but this very site has plenty of specific rebuttals of FE claims. 

Quote from: ichoosereality
What additional data has been collected that supports a FE?
See the Wiki.
Its all laser experiments, and they are all fatally flawed due to a lack of understanding of how lasers behave in the atmosphere (they diverge).  What makes you think they are credible?
see https://flatearth.ws/laser

My process
I note that you don't mention "The Bishop Experiment" at any point. You don't mention any actual observations you made.
You mention "debate and discussion". Where's the empirical approach you claim to follow?
Let's be clear - I don't believe you ever did the experiment, it's telling that you don't show any results on the Wiki page and have never produced any despite numerous challenges.
At best you may have done something but made a mistake, but as you don't publish your method or results there's no way of telling.

Quote
Whenever I post a wiki link the weak arguments against it are 'cherry picking!' and 'bias!', and not actual contradictory evidence which completely devastates it.
But that just isn't true. You're always shown contradictory evidence, you always dismiss it.
You scrutinise any evidence which shows you to be wrong to the n'th degree, any evidence which you think backs up your argument you accept without question.
You do this on every topic, not just FE.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
The three body problem applies to particle physics and astronomy - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The problem you have is that, amongst many, many other errors, the wiki entries on the 3/n body problem display a total lack of understanding of mathematics. The only mystery is whether your misunderstanding is wilful or not. It certainly looks in places like you know what you're doing, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

A great example is your proud demonstration of planets being ejected from unstable systems. The whole point is that those models demonstrate poor conservation of energy over long time periods - they aren't good models. When you constrain the system appropriately, you get much better results. You also take great pleasure in showing chaotic 3 body or n body problems. But all of those shown use similar or equal masses for the various bodies. The point in our solar system is that the sun is absolutely massive compared to the other bodies. Even the largest planet, Jupiter, has a mass less than 1000th of that of the sun. The sun absolutely dominates the system, and that is what provides some relative stability in the system compared to similar mass systems. I should add, for completeness, that 'stability' absolutely is relative - over long timeframes the orbits do of course become much harder to predict, but we are talking about hundreds of millions of years.

If you want to model the system, then yes, you need to model all of the planets, moons and comets etc, but the smaller bodies have far, far less effect on each other than the sun does. It's interesting how your extensive wiki entries on the subject completely ignore the enormous amount of scientific work that has gone into this stuff - you never mention any of the ephemeris data, for example, nor the science behind the models used to create them. You also don't seem to answer questions about them - just like this one, which you completely ignored: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg235224#msg235224If you were genuinely interested in some kind of inquiry into this stuff, you would be looking into this. But you don't, and that is very telling.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 737
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
We've discussed all of it and it's in the Wiki. Not sure what left there is to say on the matter.

Not aware that any of this has been discussed on the Wiki.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18326.msg242021#msg242021

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18268.msg240914#msg240914

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18251.msg240340#msg240340

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17770.msg238486#msg238486

Or this, showing that based upon the distance the sun can travel to Melbourne at the winter solstice that the majority of the northern hemiplane should be in light year round as well as the incorrect viewing angle of sunrise in Melbourne at the solstice.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17979.msg237233#msg237233
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.