Addressing the arguments will help to create better ones, and anyone participating in that process is supported on that matter. That seems pretty fair.
That is pretty fair.
In fact it’s exactly how progress has been made in science. People have made hypotheses and tested them. If the tests indicate the hypotheses are correct then they become theories but - and this is the crucial bit - then other people repeat the tests or create new tests. If the tests fail then the theory must be amended or, possibly, discarded entirely and replaced.
For a long time the geocentric model reigned and when observations of planets contradicted the idea that everything goes around us and we are the centre of everything the geocentric model wasn’t immediately discarded. So hard baked into scientific ideas was it that many attempts were made to fix the model so it matched the observations. Ultimately, only the heliocentric model worked so became accepted. I know you disagree that it works but those disagreements are mostly you not understanding the model.
The problem here is you treat Rowbotham’s work with a reverence usually reserved for Scripture. You repeatedly show you are not interested in anything which contradicts ENaG. He claims that horizon rises to eye level so that is what you believe. You have been shown multiple times using several different methods that it does not. The consistent results from all these tests are:
Horizon dips below eye level
The amount of dip increases with altitude.
All you’ve done in response is flail around trying to discredit the methods - you’ve actually created a Wiki page to do so. And the Wiki page about horizon remains unchanged.
You haven’t “created better arguments”, no progress has been made. Rowbotham’s ideas are sacrosanct to you so anything which contradicts them must be wrong. Worst of all, you refuse to do any tests yourself.
No progress has been made.
Back to the topic at hand, Rowbotham is wrong about perspective. I have explained why and drawn diagrams and done tests showing this. You use perspective as an explanation why clouds can be lit from below. I have demonstrated that your explanation doesn’t work but your opinion and arguments remain unchanged.
You claim you welcome challenges to your or Rowbotham’s ideas but actually you treat them as dogma and that is why there is no progress or coherent FE theory. I have never seen you cede ground on any topic no matter how clearly you’re shown to be wrong. And you’ve never done any tests yourself to demonstrate your ideas.