I have never come across any evidence that suggests the Earth to be anything other than it is.
Have you looked out your window?
The burden of proof is always on the affirmative claimant. In this case, REers are making the positive claim that the earth's shape is something other than what it appears, so the burden is on them to demonstrate this. Since the claim contradicts direct empirical evidence, their burden is heavy; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Current evidence in support of their view is easily explainable under FET, or otherwise unreliable. They have not satisfied their burden.
Since you did so well with your astronomy education I find the basis for your beliefs surprising. I never like the word 'somehow' in a sentence like this...'UA somehow accounts for the celestial objects motion'. And I'm not sure where you think the 'assumption' is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. There's no assumption needed at all here. Just recognition of the very clear evidence. Of course evidence is only evidence if you accept it. The fact is we have measured the shape of the Earth now to a very high level of precision using a variety of means.
Just because I studied something does not mean I have to accept it. For example, I was raised Catholic and am familiar with Catholic theology. This does not mean I must believe in it. Similarly, many REers have studied FET, yet none buy into it.
That the earth is an oblate spheroid is the central axiom (basic assumption) of RET. Regardless of how true or obvious it may be that the earth is oblately spheroidal, this is still assumed by the RET model.
The earth's rotundity has supposedly been demonstrated using "satellite" technology. However, I believe sustained spaceflight is virtually impossible, so I don't buy into "satellite" measurements. Do you personally have access to the raw data collected by these devices? If not, then how are you so sure they point to a round Earth? How are you so sure this data even exists?
Your understanding of astronomy should have led you to wonder why the Earth should be flat when we have never actually seen it as such. In contrast to that there are a lot of photographs taken from space and by a large number of independent sources that shows the oblate spheroid that you claim not to believe in. To dismiss photos because they don't happen to conform to your beliefs or your faith (whatever the difference there is) is hardly an acceptable line of defence. If any direct evidence existed of the whole of the flat Earth surface then there would be more of a case to answer.
Direct empirical evidence demonstrates that the earth is indeed flat. Again, have you looked out your window?
Photographic evidence is unreliable. First, no full-disk photograph of the earth has depicted its supposed oblateness. Instead, these images show a perfectly circular disk. As far as I'm aware, no one has precisely measured these images and detected a slight bulge near the equator. Evidently, Earth's oblateness is merely assumed. Second, high-altitude photography of the earth is often taken using a distortive (such as a wide-angle) lens, making it impossible to accurately determine its true shape. Finally, since images can be altered, or even completely fabricated, they don't serve as conclusive evidence.
I dismiss these photos because they don't amount to dependable evidence. The act of faith is in accepting evidence that contradicts firsthand, empirical evidence just because it's used in support of a dominant ideology. This is no different from religious people who insist God exists, just because their religious communities hold this belief, even though there is no empirical referent for his existence.
If you had said that a couple of centuries ago (at least) then I could perhaps understand it a bit more but not in the 21st century. The purpose of science is to investigate, learn and progress. To ask why and discover the answers. Science does not always get the answers right to begin and often the answers simply open up new questions but that is all part of making progress. Science is definitely not about deliberately lying about things and trying to deceive. What would be the point of that? If a belief in flat Earth is for no other reason than to take an 'anti-establishment' stand then it is sadly misguided.
Science consists of three major components: It is an institution, a method, and a body of knowledge produced by this institution/method. Being an institution, science is inherently political. Its findings are necessarily value-laden (imbued with cultural meanings) and not "objective," as that term is normally understood. As philosopher of science Sandra Harding elaborates in "Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is "Strong Objectivity"?:
. . . scientists never can study the trees, rocks, planetary orbits, or electrons that are "out there" and untouched by human concerns. Instead, they are destined to study something different (but hopefully systematically related to what is "out there"): nature as an object of knowledge. Trees, rocks, planetary orbits, and electrons always appear natural to scientists only as they are already socially constituted . . . . Such objects are already effectively "removed from pure nature" into social life—they are social objects—by, first of all, the contemporary general cultural meanings that these objects have for everyone, including the entire scientific community. They also become socially constituted objects of knowledge through the shapes and meanings these objects gain for scientists because of earlier generations of scientific discussion about them. Scientists never observe nature apart from such traditions; even when they criticize some aspects of them they must assume others to carry on the criticism. (italics in original, bold added)
Science is not an unbiased, impartial means of investigating and learning; no such endeavor could possibly be completely lacking in bias and partiality. The notion that scientific findings can "escape their historical locatedness" (and its associated political influences) is, as Harding notes, a "delusion." So, we should always regard contemporary scientific findings with a healthy dose of critical skepticism and not view them as necessarily being the result of a linear progress toward the truth. Just like biological evolution does not proceed in any particular direction (e.g., toward higher complexity or "advancement"), neither does cultural evolution in general, nor scientific progression in particular.
Presumably if FEers believe that the Earth is stationary then you will need to find an alternative explanation for meteor showers.
Actually, it's not necessary to explain every single celestial event in order to have a working model, whether for RET or FET. For instance, there are some solar phenomena that are unexplained by current models, yet these models still have great overall explanatory and predictive power.
We also know the causes of eclipses and we can predict very accurately when eclipses are going to occur in the future. Tom points out that eclipses happen in patterns. So do many things in astronomy but those patterns have only been identified through our understanding of underlying reason why eclipses happen.
Certain ancient societies, such as the Aztecs, were able to predict eclipses and other celestial events with some precision. While RET has much more precise predictive power in this regard, its
explanatory power here is questionable, as highlighted in Tom's solar eclipse thread. To summarize:
- With a stationary light source (such as the RET sun), we would expect the shadow cast by an object moving past it (like the moon) to travel in the same direction as the object.
- Only when a light source is moving about an object relative to an external reference point (such as the FET sun, which isn't stationary but instead travels in the same direction as and at a greater speed than the moon) would we expect to see the shadow it casts move in the opposite direction.
- The moon's apparent motion across the sky is much slower than the sun's (0.5° VS 15° per hour), so the path of totality's direction cannot possibly be explained as being a consequence of the moon's orbit.
- Since the path of totality's counterposed direction of travel to the moon's across the sky is what we'd expect with a moving, not stationary, light source and FET suitably accounts for this phenomenon, RET lacks explanatory power in this regard.
What I cannot yet find an underlying cause or reason for though is how someone who self-rates themselves so highly in understanding astronomy seems to hold such a strong conviction that the Earth is flat. That doesn't compute for me!
My "conviction" isn't strong. As my username suggests, I merely tend to believe the earth is flat. I lean toward FET, but am by no means a fanatic.
Show Posts