[james38]

So here we are, none of us know the truth 100% but we accept there are two scientific models that could possibly explain our world: flat-earth theory and round-earth theory.

The wiki's FAQ states:

"when using Descartes' method of Cartesian doubt to skeptically view the world around us, one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof and not Flat Earth Theory".

I find this proposition fascinating because it forcibly makes most debates between the two models follow this formula:
A) round-earther poses a "proof of spherical earth" such as boats disappearing below the water, space flight, astronomy, etc.
B) flat-earther counters that proof with an alternative explanation for the phenomena such as psychological biases, the NASA conspiracy, and any alternative scientific explanations
C) the debate ends in a standoff. Both sides simply accept and are comfortable with their own explanation and fail to make the other side uncomfortable enough with their model to switch views.

I'm a round-earther. But I don't want this post to be a debate on any specific phenomena or scientific theory. Rather, I'd like to challenge flat-earthers with the following philosophical questions:

1) The burden of proof is actually shared. I'm failing to understand how "one quickly finds that the notion of a spherical world is the theory which has the burden of proof". I am a tiny speck on an enormous world. The world is so enormous that my senses alone could not detect whether or not the curvature in the world if it existed. If you think you would be able to detect the curvature of the earth from your human senses without being really high up, you misunderstand how large the world is. Therefore, I find that the burden of proof is shared between both sides
2) According to Occam's razor, one should select round-earth theory. Cartesian doubt, mentioned in the wiki, means that you start any line of thinking by acknowledging that you don't know most things and there are only a few ground truths you can rely on. So let's say from the beginning, one does not know the shape of our world. Next, they learn some of the essential phenomena that would occur in both models. For example, in the flat-earth model, there is a wall of ice beyond which is the edge of the world. In the round earth model, Antarctica is a continent on the bottom of the planet. If the burden of proof is shared equally between both sides (as I proved in point 1), the flat-earther simply needs to provide evidence for the wall of ice and the round-earther simply needs to provide evidence for Antarctica.

Here is my evidence for Antarctica: the second image on this webpage: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003402/index.html

Now, I know for a fact that flat-earthers have counter-arguments against this image's validity. But because
the burden of proof is shared, this is still the winning empirical evidence until there is an equal or more convincing image of the wall of ice or whatever lies beyond it. In other words, Occam's razor says you should select the theory with fewer assumptions. For flat-earth theory to be true the assumption is that there is a global conspiracy centered around NASA. For round-earth theory to be true, the assumption is that there is no picture of an ice wall because there is no ice wall. Which is the lesser assumption, the existence of a global conspiracy, or the non-existence of a mysterious ice-wall?

This leads me to my third point:
3) Flat-earth theory, while claiming to be a science, is believed unquestionably and without doubt or scientific rigor. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. And the degree to which a theory is true directly corresponds to how rigorously it has been tested and proven to not be false. The round-earth theory is extremely falsifiable. If space travel is not possible, simply show me a picture or video of the edge of the world from a plane, boat, or antarctic expedition.
If I saw a valid picture of the edge of the world and came to terms with NASA being a conspiracy, I would change my belief. This however makes me even more confident in my round-earth belief, because I know no such image of the ice wall exists. So I ask flat-earthers, if a picture of Antarctica is not enough, what makes your theory falsifiable? What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief? What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?

[AATW]

So here we are, none of us know the truth 100% but we accept there are two scientific models that could possibly explain our world: flat-earth theory and round-earth theory.

I actually don't accept that.
There is no coherent flat earth model which has any explanatory power.

A rotating globe earth which is tilted on its access and orbits a distant sun explains night and day, seasons, the "sinking ship" effect simply.

To explain these things on a FE ad hoc mechanisms are needed. Let's take the sun. What is making the sun go in a circle above us? Circular motion requires a force, what generates that? If the seasons are explained by the diameter of the sun's orbit changing then what causes that? Another force is required. And what makes the sun speed up such that the 24 hour day length is maintained as the sun's orbit increases in diameter. What makes it slow down as the orbit decreases? That's a 3rd force. And what makes the orbit's diameter "flip" every 6 months so for 6 months the diameter increases then for 6 months it decreases?
Why doesn't the sun fall on us? What makes the sun work if it's local and small? How could something that small generate that much energy and heat for all of recorded history?

There is no FE model which can make predictions and there's no working map. I don't accept there are 2 models which could explain our observations.

[jack44556677]

@james38

Models are meta-scientific tools.  They are not for explanation or understanding.

They are always wrong, but are limitedly useful for a finite time.

RE has profound amounts of assumption, so no - occam the monk does not help you or your case.  Anyway, that was intended for scientific theory, which the "globe model" is not.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.  If a flat earth researcher claims that the earth is flat - the burden of proof would fall on them.  If the flat earth researcher claims nothing, the burden of proof is still required of the presumptive model.

All round earth believers declare (implicitly or otherwise) that the earth is spherical with conviction and certainty. It is a dogma of their faith, and they are punished for dissent (the church never changes).  As such this claim necessarily requires proof (by the convention) in the first instance - and no more "debate" can happen until that is forthcoming.  It always seems easy to RE believers initially, until they try and do it in earnest.  Many flat earth researchers start out this way - trying to disprove this "stupid/crazy/misguided little cult" and such things, and after encountering significant difficulty, begin questioning their beliefs masquerading as fact and science.

In any case, debate is not useful to determine what is going on in reality. That's what science is for!

[james38]

@ jack44556677, thank you for your response. I hope we can have an interesting conversation.

I'd like to get on the same page as you. If I'm understanding you correctly, a model is not an explanation. Rather, it is for generating hypotheses to conduct scientific experiments on.

If "The burden of proof is on the claimant" you must agree that we have two claimants, FEers and REers. As you stated, if a researcher claims nothing the burden of proof lies with the presumptive model. Ok. So far I think we are still on the same page. But if we are on the Flat Earth Society's "Flat Earth Theory" forum, I think Flat Earth in this context is the presumptive theory.

As such this claim necessarily requires proof (by the convention) in the first instance - and no more "debate" can happen until that is forthcoming.

As I mentioned before, proof is to test a hypothesis on a falsifiable theory. The globe model is falsifiable. If we fly into space and look at the planet and see that it is flat, we have proven the null hypothesis. However, we flew into space and saw the Earth was a globe. This is disproving the null hypothesis, and thus scientific evidence.

All round earth believers declare (implicitly or otherwise) that the earth is spherical with conviction and certainty. It is a dogma of their faith, and they are punished for dissent (the church never changes).

This is not true in the slightest, at least in this conversation. I have come to this forum hoping for a scientific/philosophical conversation based on evidence, facts, and logic alone. So let's leave out any of talk of society's influence so we can have a pure discussion of the evidence and our lines of logic.

It always seems easy to RE believers initially, until they try and do it in earnest.  Many flat earth researchers start out this way - trying to disprove this "stupid/crazy/misguided little cult" and such things, and after encountering significant difficulty, begin questioning their beliefs masquerading as fact and science.

I am not slandering you or anyone in this forum in that way. From what I've been experiencing, FEers are sincere scientists and thinkers with a theory, and I am coming here to have a respectful conversation.

Also, I have so far encountered zero difficulties. I made one point (as an example) about NASA's image of Antarctica. This was my disproof of the null hypothesis. I have requested that a proponent of the opposing theory (FE) to state what would make their theory falsifiable, and show me the evidence that disproves their null hypothesis.

RE has profound amounts of assumption

Every theory has assumptions. What makes a theory more complex is having relatively more assumptions than the other. So based on one piece of evidence we have (NASA image of Antarctica), let us look at the two assumptions:

1) The earth is a globe. This is why we saw Antarctica.
2) The earth is flat.  We saw Antarctica because there is a global elitist conspiracy that produced it as a hoax. There is no Antarctica because it is an ice wall. The human race, despite its technological progress, has been unable to get an image or evidence of this ice wall because of "XYZ"...

Which one of these two theories has more assumptions?

So far, at least in this conversation, it is you who has encountered difficulty. You avoided and did not answer my most important original question:

What makes your theory falsifiable? What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief? What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?

In any case, debate is not useful to determine what is going on in reality. That's what science is for!

Debate is a part of science, hence "scientific debates". And science is ultimately governed by the philosophy of science. And I respect you all as scientific thinkers which is why I came here seeking a philosophical/scientific debate, as scholars do.

[jack44556677]

@james38

I hope we can have an interesting conversation.

Interesting and productive/effective I hope!

If I'm understanding you correctly, a model is not an explanation. Rather, it is for generating hypotheses to conduct scientific experiments on.

That is a fair interpretation.

But if we are on the Flat Earth Society's "Flat Earth Theory" forum, I think Flat Earth in this context is the presumptive theory.

That's a thought!  Possibly some here may agree with you, however I personally (just an internet rando, not a TFES representative or otherwise able to speak for anyone but myself) have a few issues with the premise.

First, there is no flat earth theory in a scientific context.  Theory has a hallowed place in science, and what fledgling science exists for this subject is not there yet.

Second,  you may have read this on the wiki (and if you have not done so, I recommend a read through or two!), but there is a critical and often neglected distinction between belief and knowledge.  Many, if not most, people will admit/attest that they "believe the world is round" (they rarely say "spherical", "oblate" etc. but we know what they mean.)

They use the verbiage of belief because it is earnest and accurate, as well as colloquial.  There are almost no people in the world prepared to claim and defend that they KNOW what the shape of the entire world is.  Personally, and I am not alone - though may not be the norm in TFES (I'm new-ish), I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  I lack the verified and verifiable data to make that determination with certainty - to ACTUALLY know it, as opposed to merely believe as most all else do as a matter of educational requirement/rote.  For this reason, I do not claim that the earth is flat - I claim that it (most likely) cannot be spherical.  My "kind" is often referred to as globe deniers or globe skeptics.

Thirdly (and finally), much of the products (conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments) of flat earth research are not so much toward the creation of a new replacement theory, as they are against the presumptive model that is mandated in schools since early childhood with no dissent allowed.  For example, in my research (historical analysis, in this case); I found that not only had pythagoras' unvalidated assumption, of the earth being spherical, never been validated but during all that time it had been taught disingenuously/erroneously as fact to children (like eratosthenes and columbus) for millennia before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)

However, we flew into space and saw the Earth was a globe.

And if we didn't do that?  What if that only took place on TV and not in real life.  What then?  This may appear to be a wildly speculative hypothetical, but I assure you it is anything but.  This is a worthy question to consider and research regardless of your position.

I have come to this forum hoping for a scientific/philosophical conversation based on evidence, facts, and logic alone.

Excellent, me too! Converse! Just don't debate - it's not for smart people.

So let's leave out any of talk of society's influence so we can have a pure discussion of the evidence and our lines of logic.

If you think it will help us discuss, very well.  However, it is important that you understand the point here - as it is at the crux of your post.  The "default" position (dogma) for anyone "educated" is that the world is spherical.  It is the claim most at issue in the discussion, and it is profitless to pretend like it isn't your claim because TECHNICALLY you didn't say specifically that just now.  Debate is a stupid game.  Rational discourse is much more rewarding and valuable, however it pays to be honest (with yourself and others). It would be dishonest to claim that you earnestly do not believe/claim the world to be spherical, would it not?

From what I've been experiencing, FEers are sincere scientists and thinkers with a theory, and I am coming here to have a respectful conversation.

I'm pleased that has been your experience.  I fear it is not the norm for people foraying (or attempting to) into this subject.  There are many disearnest, disingenuous, and profiteering in this space.

I have requested that a proponent of the opposing theory (FE) to state what would make their theory falsifiable, and show me the evidence that disproves their null hypothesis.

Interesting approach.  What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?

Every theory has assumptions.

Absolutely, all philosophy is built on them.  The question is which one has more of them.  However this is all non-sequitur because occam's razor is for scientific theories and neither the globe model nor the flat earth model (which does not exist in a scientific context either) are scientific theories.  It's also a rule of thumb, not a binding principle towards truth everlasting.

1) The earth is a globe. This is why we saw Antarctica.

This assumes much.  Certainly we can't conclude the shape of the entire world by merely looking at a picture of antarctica... right?

2) The earth is flat.  We saw Antarctica because there is a global elitist conspiracy that produced it as a hoax. There is no Antarctica because it is an ice wall. The human race, despite its technological progress, has been unable to get an image or evidence of this ice wall because of "XYZ"...

Some are convinced that antarctica is an ice wall (or connected to it) and encircles the world. Personally, I have doubts about things I don't know for certain.  The speculation is interesting, and maybe even possible, but depending on it to determine the shape of the world seems unjustified given the little amount of evidence I estimate there is to support it.

Which one of these two theories has more assumptions?

We may have to define some terms.  I'm kind of a stickler meeseeks.

Occam's razor is for scientific theories, not theories in the colloquial sense - as you just used it.

What makes your theory falsifiable?

Karl popper's fringes are not part of the scientific method proper, however I do agree with this one in any case.  In order for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable.  Let's say that these words did not have rigorously defined definitions in a scientific context - and there are 2 "theories" going head to head.  RET says the earth is round.  FET says the earth is flat.  Why do/would you feel either is unfalsifiable?

What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief?

This is your question! You thought it was directed at me, but it wasn't!  You should answer this one (or give it a shot, anyhow)! I am rubber, and you are glue!

Seriously.  You should answer your question above for yourself about yourself. In the meantime, I will answer your question.

First, belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe that the earth is flat, round, spherical or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  I KNOW that the assumption the earth is spherical is over 2 millennia old and has never been validated in all of human history (until arguably NASA et al and their MIC affiliates, if you believe everything you see on tv).  I KNOW that the surface of motionless water under natural conditions (of sufficient quantity and barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is flat, level, and horizontal; and that that natural law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries - very much including today.  Because of these things I know, i have deduced that the world is (most likely) not spherical, and cannot be.

To change what I know in this regard would require altering (refuting / changing / updating) the 2 statements that I know are factual above (due to thorough research), or determining the shape of the world in a sufficiently validated and validatable (with independent oversight etc.) manner.  There is only one way to determine the shape of objects in manifest objective reality with certainty, and the earth is no special case.

What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?

The physical measurement (validation/confirmation) of the sustained convex curving of water's surface required by the globe model.  It is perpetually calculated, but has never been measured in all of human history.  This is odd, especially considering it has been taught to children as fact erroneously/disingenuously for millennia.

Debate is a part of science, hence "scientific debates"

Debate is not a part of science.  It isn't part of being president either, but the bloodthirsty meat puppets really like carnage.

Debate is base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges.  It has no place in effective communication/learning, or science.

Science, despite what we have been incorrectly taught to the contrary, is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law, established by rigorous and repeated measurement alone) and colloquially to the body of knowledge that that method produces.  There is no "get audience and judges together for pageantry" nor "debate" step in the scientific method.  We don't argue/debate our way to figuring out how the world works.  That's what science is for!

I look forward to more discussion!

[james38]

Thank you for your engaging responses @jack44556677 !

Debate is not a part of science.  It isn't part of being president either, but the bloodthirsty meat puppets really like carnage.

Debate is base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges.  It has no place in effective communication/learning, or science.

Science, despite what we have been incorrectly taught to the contrary, is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law, established by rigorous and repeated measurement alone) and colloquially to the body of knowledge that that method produces.  There is no "get audience and judges together for pageantry" nor "debate" step in the scientific method.  We don't argue/debate our way to figuring out how the world works.  That's what science is for!

Debate is a stupid game.  Rational discourse is much more rewarding and valuable, however, it pays to be honest (with yourself and others). It would be dishonest to claim that you earnestly do not believe/claim the world to be spherical, would it not?

I like the way you think. Let's call this what it is. You are inclined to believe one proposition and I am inclined to believe a contradictory one. And the focus of the conversation is which one is more likely true. That's all I mean by "debate" .. no judges, audience, or egos necessary!

Scientific debates are everywhere in the field. One researcher or lab may have one theory and another may have a contradictory or at least very different one to explain the same phenomena. And both use the scientific method to test and try to prove their theories. And yes, honest scientists are also unbiased and admit it as soon as their theory is wrong! Don't associate the word with political debates. I'm talking about the kind that occurs over decades and mostly in writing. We still call them "scientific debates".

Also, I want to apologize in advance if I ever come off as arrogant or condescending. That is not my intention!

First, there is no flat earth theory in a scientific context.  Theory has a hallowed place in science, and what fledgling science exists for this subject is not there yet.

Second,  you may have read this on the wiki (and if you have not done so, I recommend a read through or two!), but there is a critical and often neglected distinction between belief and knowledge.  Many, if not most, people will admit/attest that they "believe the world is round" (they rarely say "spherical", "oblate" etc. but we know what they mean.)

They use the verbiage of belief because it is earnest and accurate, as well as colloquial.  There are almost no people in the world prepared to claim and defend that they KNOW what the shape of the entire world is.  Personally, and I am not alone - though may not be the norm in TFES (I'm new-ish), I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  I lack the verified and verifiable data to make that determination with certainty - to ACTUALLY know it, as opposed to merely believe as most all else do as a matter of educational requirement/rote.  For this reason, I do not claim that the earth is flat - I claim that it (most likely) cannot be spherical.  My "kind" is often referred to as globe deniers or globe skeptics.

I agree with most of this. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a great starting point for us.

Except for the point about faith. Faith is belief without evidence. NASA's pics count as evidence. More on that later.

The "default" position (dogma) for anyone "educated" is that the world is spherical.

I agree.

We are on a Flat Earth Society forum but in a "Spherical Earth Society" world. Let's call the burden of proof even for now? I mainly meant for "burden of proof" to be a good entryway into a conversation/debate because I've never spoken with a flat earth researcher before and thought it would be a good starting point.

Thirdly (and finally), much of the products (conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments) of flat earth research are not so much toward the creation of a new replacement theory, as they are against the presumptive model that is mandated in schools since early childhood with no dissent allowed.  For example, in my research (historical analysis, in this case); I found that not only had plato's unvalidated assumption, of the earth being spherical, never been validated but during all that time it had been taught disingenuously/erroneously as fact to children (like eratosthenes and columbus) for millennia before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)

It's definitely interesting to hear how flat earth researchers are approaching things. I think breaking down your approach will serve well as evidence for one of my central arguments, which is that flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.

Firstly, you've discouraged us from using the word theory:

occam's razor is for scientific theories and neither the globe model nor the flat earth model (which does not exist in a scientific context either) are scientific theories

I can't let this one slide, or it will topple my whole argument.

Shall we go with Wikipedia's definition for "theory"?

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Aspect of the natural world: We live on a planet which we are able to circumnavigate.
Explanation/theory 1: sphere
Explanation/theory 2: disc

So back to my argument: flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.

Let's talk about the scientific method. I'll start a little list here (though it may be incomplete), let me know what you think.

1. Have a falsifiable theory to explain a phenomenon
2. Think of a hypothesis that relates directly to the falsifiable part of the theory.
3. Run an experiment to test that hypothesis

If the null hypothesis is proven true, that means that theory was proven false. If the null hypothesis is disproven, this does not prove the theory 100% true. It only makes it stronger. No theory can ever be proven 100%, but a particular theory can be disproven. Although sometimes, a disproven theory only needs a slight modification in order to be revived as a possibility.

Now, we have two theories before us, disc and globe. It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory. That's great because it's a falsifiable theory that can be tested to confirm or reduce your skepticism!

Your historical analysis is fascinating from a historical perspective, but it does nothing to disprove the falsifiable aspect of either theory. So your claim that is "against the presumptive model", I'd have to disagree with.

I'm wondering if this might be one of the more subtle deeper differences between our perspectives (maybe you can agree on this). In my camp, none of us care whatsoever what Plato said. We believe that we have concrete evidence today, and that is all that matters. But in your camo, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might believe that modern science is built upon twisted assumptions about the worlds shape that goes back all the way to the Greeks. I don't want to put up a strawman though, just thinking out loud.


Now NASA seeing Antarctica from space? That's the perfect test of a falsifiable theory. I think we agree that if we fly into space and see Antarctica, glove theory was proven. But then you say...

If we didn't [fly into space and see the earth is a globe]?  What if that only took place on TV and not in real life.  What then?  This may appear to be a wildly speculative hypothetical, but I assure you it is anything but.  This is a worthy question to consider and research regardless of your position.

I'm definitely following you. A global elitist conspiracy is technically possible. But it is complex and involves many assumptions. For example, we'd have to assume that there has been widespread lying and brainwashing, and somehow no leaks! I'm definitely not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it lacks a simple and thorough explanation.

I'm pleased that has been your experience.  I fear it is not the norm for people foraying (or attempting to) into this subject.  There are many disearnest, disingenuous, and profiteering in this space.

I think it's really sad the way flat earth believers are treated sometimes. But I think that's no surprise, humans are just like that. We are all desperate for answers and due to cognitive dissonance, it's much less stressful to just blanket reject anything that threatens your core beliefs. Just look at religion...

[in response to me asking what makes Flat Earth Theory falsifiable]

Interesting approach.  What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?

I don't consider "NASA lies" to be falsifying of flat earth theory (actually, this is the opposite it is evidence towards flat earth theory). Maybe this line of thought could be very beneficial for our conversation.

But assuming that you meant "NASA lies" as being a way to falsify globe earth theory, I'd have to disagree. If it were proven that NASA lied, that would not disprove globe theory. It doesn't contradict the theory in any way or prove the null hypothesis. NASA can be lying and the Earth can still be a globe nonetheless! The two do not logically contradict.

Anyway, what I really meant to ask you is what meakes flat earth theory falsifiable. Which you did answer!:

The physical measurement (validation/confirmation) of the sustained convex curving of water's surface required by the globe model.  It is perpetually calculated, but has never been measured in all of human history.  This is odd, especially considering it has been taught to children as fact erroneously/disingenuously for millennia.

Great! So in other words, if the sustained convex of the curving of the water's surface was measured physically (I'm curious what tool does this) and was non-zero, this would disprove the flat-earth model. Are we on the same page here? This is exactly what I mean by falsifiable. And I like how straightforward it is as a hypothesis.

This is your question! You thought it was directed at me, but it wasn't!  You should answer this one (or give it a shot, anyhow)! I am rubber, and you are glue!

I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.

But according to you (I don't know anything about convex measurements), this is an unanswered question. I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth thoery since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.

But those measurements don't exist, sadly. Maybe it's useful through as a thought experiment.

I'm going to invent a tool in my head that could conduct this experiment. It's a giant (many miles long), solid, non-flexible floating bar of some sort. I don't think such an item can exist, so bear with me. Its just a thought experiment. But when you lay it on a flat-earth ocean, both ends touch the water, since the water surface is flat. But on a globe, both ends would raise above the water to some extent. Or the middle would sink below, depending on the density of the material. In any case, the ends would be higher than the middle relative to the water's surface.

Now suppose NHWA (National Hydronautics and Water Administration) goes and conducts this test... I think you see where I am going with this. What would stop you from just disbelieving those scientists?

Let's go back to what you said before:

 What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?

I think your disbelief in NASA is, in fact, the most foundational and unifying proposition in your camp.

You say:

Certainly we can't conclude the shape of the entire world by merely looking at a picture of antarctica... right?

Yes yes yes, we can! It looks like a globe, and Antarctica looks like a continent at the bottom. The only possible way that this picture exists at the same time as the earth not being a globe is if the picture is a hoax. So logically speaking, this is central to your theory? Am I wrong? You said yourself that you aren't sure the Earth is a disk or what shape it may be. But what your more sure of, if I understand correctly, is that NASA is lying to us.

So why don't we approach the question of NASA lying scientifically? You have a theory, which is that NASA's images of space are fabricated. But tell me how this is falsifiable. Tell me what evidence you could have, what hypothesis you could test, that would prove or disprove whether NASA is lying.

Karl popper's fringes are not part of the scientific method proper, however I do agree with this one in any case.  In order for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable.  Let's say that these words did not have rigorously defined definitions in a scientific context - and there are 2 "theories" going head to head.  RET says the earth is round.  FET says the earth is flat.  Why do/would you feel either is unfalsifiable?

To be honest, my reasoning becomes more clear while I was writing this reply. I think you are correct that FET is not unfalsifiable. It is just as falsifiable as globe earth theory. But when you selectively disbelieve evidence, then that is what makes it unfalsifiable. NASA's images are for sure not the only evidence we have in support of globe earth theory, but it is the most important by far because of the scale of the coordinated conspiracy that would be required in order to create the hoax.

Questioning the validity of a single researcher and lab is within reason but if you are opening to question the validity of a coordinated effort of physicists as large as NASA, how can you believe anything at all?

 I KNOW that the assumption the earth is spherical is over 2 millennia old and has never been validated in all of human history (until arguably NASA et al and their MIC affiliates, if you believe everything you see on tv).

You KNOW that NASA lied? Because if you read the "knowledge" you claim to have, it seems you are the one with quite a bit of faith. That's the funny thing about all of this: Getting a shred of evidence that NASA lied would be impossible (definitely challenging you on this). This is where my "unfalsifiable" argument derives from. NASA hands you the greatest evidence of all time that you could ever dream of in answering the age-old question of the shape of our world. And given that evidence, you call them liars and choose to believe the opposite of what your eyes see. It's not unfalsifiable inherently, it's unfalsifiable once you choose to selectively disbelieve certain evidence.

 I KNOW that the surface of motionless water under natural conditions (of sufficient quantity and barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is flat, level, and horizontal; and that that natural law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries - very much including today.

Interesting, I'd be really curious to hear more about this. How exactly do the laws of hydrostatics help in forming hypotheses related to the two theories? Have these hypotheses been tested?

To change what I know in this regard would require altering (refuting / changing / updating) the 2 statements that I know are factual above (due to thorough research), or determining the shape of the world in a sufficiently validated and validatable (with independent oversight etc.) manner.  There is only one way to determine the shape of objects in manifest objective reality with certainty, and the earth is no special case.

I'm afraid our conversation is inflating a lot, so please don't feel pressure to respond to every single one of my points. I hope all the fluff is useful to help us get acquainted at least   I'll give you my top 3 questions/arguments, and then maybe you can do the same for me.

1) What is your proof that NASA lied?
2) Can you explain in more depth about the hydrostatics?
3) If NASA was able to pull off the greatest scientific hoax of all time with such great success, how can we ever believe what any scientific organization ever tells us again?

Looking forward to your response!

[jack44556677]

@james38

Part 1 of 2

You are inclined to believe one proposition and I am inclined to believe a contradictory one.

It is true that we are both products of our cultures/raising and both suffering from delusion euphemistically referred to as "bias" (and worse). I must reiterate that I endeavor diligently to eschew belief from all knowledge/fact, most especially scientific.  I do not believe the things I say, I seek to know instead of merely believe.  The claims I make are validated as correct and supported through and by research, and do not rely upon belief.  This stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of "educated" which are required as a dogma of their faith to believe the earth is a particular shape (usually "spherical", but increasingly "flat" and other shapes).  Whenever someone, including yourself, uses the verbiage of belief - your ears ought perk up.  Many, if not most, people are not explicitly aware of the beliefs they have that are masquerading as facts/knowledge/science and this can often be exposed/betrayed to us by their diction.

I would say that we are 2 people with differing views engaged in conversation / rational discourse in the, ideally, mutual and earnest pursuit of truth (and failing that lofty goal, just plain knowledge will suffice). 

And the focus of the conversation is which one is more likely true. That's all I mean by "debate" .. no judges, audience, or egos necessary!

Most excellent. I'm game! However, it is important to remember that no amount of discussion (nor assessment of "likelihood") will (or could) ever determine the shape of the world. There is only one way to do that.

Don't associate the word with political debates

I do recognize that there is no debate more farcical and unstructured than political "debate" - perhaps most especially in the US, however all debate is merely a game in my view.  It has no purpose beyond pageantry/marketing.  It is in no way a part of science or the scientific method, it is a part of marketing it.  Debate serves no role in determining what is or is not in manifest physical reality - that is what science is for! I am aware that the egotists in science enjoy the game, and that bohr absolutely destroyed einstein - but this is as meaningless and stupid as any other pageantry - football or any other sport, for instance.  It has an impact on science, as does "consensus", but these are clear and obvious corruptions.

We still call them "scientific debates".

True.  This distracts from their true purpose - marketing/persuasion/manipulation.  Science is not progressed or practiced with debate.  Debate is not a step in the scientific method.  Rigorous, or perhaps even heated, discussion that leads to meaningful hypothesis that can be experimentally validated on the other hand is not debate.  Debate has formal rules, like all games.  Scientific discourse, contentious/heated or not, should not be referred to as debate.

The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a great starting point for us.

I'm glad you brought that up! This subject has a lot to do with the greeks.

This is a mistranslation.  I was taught it too (as were many others), and it's wrong.  Socrates never said that!  For a wise philosopher to declare his wisdom and knowledge as worthless/meaningless would be unthinkable.

What he actually said was, "At least I do not claim to know, that which I know I cannot know".  He was speaking to the elites of his day, whom he preferred to commit suicide rather than continue to live in the same world with.

I agree, this is a great place to start.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is also any "fact" supported/underpinned by belief (with or without subjective "evidence").  Most all religious people argue for the evidence of the reality of their stories.  They ALL have evidence...  So did the greeks that believed zeus was responsible for this and that.  Personally I am not so averse to faith as I am to blind faith, however belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.

NASA's pics count as evidence. More on that later.

Possibly, but they come from a demonstrably (and repeatedly) untrustworthy source.  The sad truth is they are the ONLY evidence (supposedly that remains). 

Space doesn't exist except on tv, and I know how wild that sounds. 

Pictures are also a suspect form of evidence, as I have many pictures of the loch ness monster and bigfoot.  For this reason, they can never serve as the sole evidence or "proof", as they essentially MUST in the case of "space" writ-large.

Let's call the burden of proof even for now?

If by that you mean that neither RET nor FET (if such a thing there be) has sufficient proof to satisfy the burden of proof as to the claim of the specific, known, and provable shape of the world; then I more or less agree.  There exists about as much "proof" that the entire world is spherical as it is flat.

flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.

It is quite the opposite!  However, I wish you would stop abusing the word "theory".  Can we call them posits?  Neither is a theory - even colloquially, "Hey man, the earth is totally round/flat" hardly qualifies.

I can't let this one slide, or it will topple my whole argument.

Here we go...  So far I don't see any obvious issue with changing "theory" to "posit", but I can tolerate it if you feel it is important.

Let's talk about the scientific method. I'll start a little list here (though it may be incomplete), let me know what you think.

Looks pretty good! Way above average in my experience.  There may be some issues with the verbiage however.  The sticky wicket is, once again, "theory".

I have no issue with having a theory in step 1 which you wish to test, though it is a little odd/non-standard.  Typically the word to use, where you had inserted "theory", is "hypothesis". Experiments only have one function, and they do not test theories, only hypotheses. The rigid linkage between the theory and the hypothesis may be hard if not impossible to guarantee - but so far, mostly so good.

If the null hypothesis is proven true, that means that theory was proven false.

As a stickler, I am compelled to point out that the experiment, in the strictest sense only validates, invalidates (or neither) the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis is not solidly connected / comprised in the theory, this deduction may be unsound.  But, still so far so good - i think.

If the null hypothesis is disproven, this does not prove the theory 100% true. It only makes it stronger. No theory can ever be proven 100%, but a particular theory can be disproven. Although sometimes, a disproven theory only needs a slight modification in order to be revived as a possibility.

Still good!

It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.

Correct.  The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

That's great because it's a falsifiable theory that can be tested to confirm or reduce your skepticism!

The posit and conclusion (that the earth most likely cannot be spherical) can be falsified, yes.  It can also be demonstrated, historically, that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old (or at least was until the 50's/60's, if you believe what you see on tv)

So your claim that is "against the presumptive model", I'd have to disagree with.

The quoted phrase was referencing the "conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments" that support the claim (that the earth, most likely, is not and cannot be - spherical)

In my camp, none of us care whatsoever what Plato said.

Newton was known as agelastic (never laughing / hard-ass), however there is one anecdote on the books of an exception.  Supposedly a classmate came upon him reading euclid, and asked him why in the world he was reading that old junk - to which he burst into uproarious laughter.  In fairness, your answer may have been slightly different had I NOT mistakenly written plato, when I intended to write pythagoras.  Would it have made a difference? Anyway, the history of science is critical to understanding it - and I suspect this is one of the reasons it is, largely, so poorly taught.  All of philosophy is built on premises/posits/tenets/assumptions, and science / natural philosophy is no exception.  Without studying and critically evaluating those foundations, laid in bygone eras, you may be building on sand.

We believe that we have concrete evidence today, and that is all that matters.

There is that verbiage of belief where it does not belong again!  It is true, you do believe that - and are required to as a matter of rote / dogma of the faith.  If the concrete evidence you believe exists actually does, this could be a short conversation!

But in your camp, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might believe that modern science is built upon twisted assumptions about the worlds shape that goes back all the way to the Greeks. I don't want to put up a strawman though, just thinking out loud.

Kind of?  Again, I personally endeavor diligently to leave belief out of it whenever possible!  I am not deluded enough to think I am completely successful, however.

You might be surprised how little the world changes when our mere conceptions of it do.  If the world is flat, then everything we observe happens on a flat earth.  No contradictions, no issues, no stress.

Nothing in science depends on the sphericity of the earth the way it is preached in the mythology.  No technology relies on it, etc.  Yes the greeks are the first on record to make the mistake, and it kind of got "grandfathered" in because it was largely unimportant scientifically - but there need be no grand conspiracy for humans to constantly be stupid and wrong as they always are.  It's a comedy of err's you see.

So in other words, if the sustained convex of the curving of the water's surface was measured physically (I'm curious what tool does this) and was non-zero, this would disprove the flat-earth model.

Not really, however it would suggest against it.  Establishing this measurement would allow for spherical to be a possible shape of the world.  Without that measurement, there is nothing empirical or scientific about the globe posit.

Are we on the same page here? This is exactly what I mean by falsifiable. And I like how straightforward it is as a hypothesis.

More or less, yes - I think so!  I also like how straightforward and innocuous this entire subject appears at first glance - this "hypothesis" included.

I'm definitely following you.

Good! That's more than half the battle.

A global elitist conspiracy is technically possible.

And yet nothing so fantastic or grandiose is in any way necessitated.  The wiki here does a good job describing how the "conspiracy" need not be very large, nor specifically pertaining to the shape of the world.  The MIC is quite real in any case, and is not a trustworthy source.

For example, we'd have to assume that there has been widespread lying and brainwashing, and somehow no leaks!

No, we wouldn't HAVE to assume that.  Humanity requires no help to be constantly stupid and wrong.  In any case, in regards to the fabrication of "space" and the "space age" there have been "leaks" - and some bad things happened to them.  Regardless, you can have leaks all day long, as long as no one does anything substantive about them - remember edward snowden?

I think it's really sad the way flat earth believers are treated sometimes

I agree, though I have seen irrational intolerance, prejudice, and ad hominem on all sides.  Pretty much what you expect from "belief cults" regardless of under the guise of science, known as scientism, or more traditional deities.  The trouble is the belief bit - it has no place in science and is across purposes.  If people actually KNEW what the shape of the world was, and how they knew, and how to convey it effectively to others - we would not be in this mess right now. It is all a mass failure of "education" in my view.  People who believe the world is any shape have faith, not knowledge - and it is a bitter lesson for a lot of them.  It is little wonder they are so easily swayed from believing the world is a sphere, to believing it is some other shape - and never recognizing that BELIEF is the thing leading them astray all along.  When you know, and you know how you know - you are much more difficult to f about.  That is probably a major reason why these skills were not fostered in generations of "students".  Abject appeal to authority is much preferred to a learned and critical populous. It has been discovered that the best time to instate tyranny, is in the nursery.

Just look at religion...

I am! And it is being disingenuously/erroneously presented as fact/knowledge and science when it is mythology/religion and/or unvalidated speculation (at absolute best).  The myth of scientism is grand, and pernicious - just like most religious mythology.  Cognitive dissonance is indeed painless - there is a LOT of confusion on what that is and how it works out there.  Denialism is not involved in earnest flat earth research.  Though MIC sources like nasa et al are denied/discarded outright by some, the vast majority of times the data is simply reinterpreted - not discarded.  It is all too easy to simply deny the reality of some things, and continue in your natural default delusion. We must be ever vigilante not to let that happen, even - and perhaps especially - if it is inevitable.

But when you selectively disbelieve evidence, then that is what makes it unfalsifiable.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you/they aren't still objectively wrong while ignoring all the reality and observation that conflicts with your/their worldview (or posit/theory in our diminished context).  Consensus is not a part of science, and we can't (and shouldn't) force people to give up their delusions - they have to want to do it themselves, earnestly.  We should encourage, and educate, and demonstrate - but never force.  Even if you succeeded, from unclean means comes an unclean result.  As I said, most all "concrete" evidence is merely reinterpreted - not discarded or denied.

NASA's images are for sure not the only evidence we have in support of globe earth theory, but it is the most important by far because of the scale of the coordinated conspiracy that would be required in order to create the hoax.

We are dipping into the hypothetical here, however a large coordinated conspiracy is not necessitated.  Thorough compartmentalization can be employed to keep virtually everyone in the dark, and the key players only with limited access/information and unending surveillance - all speculation of course.  No conspiracy is really required at all to take pictures with normal lenses at high altitude and mistake barrel distortion for the "curvature of the earth" you expected to see there due to conditioning through rote from childhood under the guise of education.  As I said, people have no trouble being wrong - and it requires no conspiracy.

Questioning the validity of a single researcher and lab is within reason but if you are opening to question the validity of a coordinated effort of physicists as large as NASA, how can you believe anything at all?

Well, you can't really believe anything the MIC says - ever.  It's something everyone knows, but few people apply it to nasa for nationalistic pride / hubris reasons.  Everyone knows not to trust the government, but nasa is a direct descendant of george washington for some reason.

It is a good and valid question, however.  The wonderful thing about science is it requires no faith.  Hell, it may even require doubt! Trust is not involved.  If it is demonstrable, then there's probably something to it - if not, it is probably fiction.  The longer I live the more I side with planck and newton; The only means of knowledge at our disposal is experiment; all else is poetry and imagination.

You KNOW that NASA lied?

Many times, about many things!

Getting a shred of evidence that NASA lied would be impossible

Your faith compels you, and other good citizens/employees and "students", to believe that it is impossible.  It's impossible because there is no chance that they lied right?  Or is it impossible because they are superhuman gods that can't make mistakes and never lie?  There is lots of evidence, going over it will take time - however I highly recommend the wiki here -  "the conspiracy" page can provide a pretty comprehensive overview!

[jack44556677]

@james38

Part 2 of 2

NASA hands you the greatest evidence of all time that you could ever dream of in answering the age-old question of the shape of our world

If you accept the presumptive narrative, then yes.  Not only are they the ones to hand it to us, they are the only ones in the history of humanity that have ever done so AND are the only ones today that can do the same (along with their MIC affiliates, of course).  The earth being spherical was disingenuously/erroneously taught to students as validated fact for millennia before they were the first to validate it in the 50's-60's - again, IF you subscribe to the presumptive narrative required in school without dissent.

And given that evidence, you call them liars and choose to believe the opposite of what your eyes see.

Once again, I am rubber and you are glue.  The "evidence" that you are talking about ONLY exists on tv.  What my eyes see, and yours - is the same, and it is not a spherical world.  That's why they have to get us so young you see.  The globe must be "explained" to us early and often, and it isn't organically divined from the senses.  It is not consistent with what we observe, and the things we are taught ARE evidence for it do not bear scrutiny.  They were designed only for fooling/convincing children.

it's unfalsifiable once you choose to selectively disbelieve certain evidence.

Not really, we are really only talking about the 1 evidence.  The footage from nasa et al.  Surely the posit/theory that the globe is real is "concrete" enough to discard that one source and still have plenty of evidence/validation - right?

How exactly do the laws of hydrostatics help in forming hypotheses related to the two theories? Have these hypotheses been tested?

I mentioned that very same concern above!  Without that rock-solid established linkage between them, there is no necessary relevance/pertinence to the results of testing the hypothesis on the greater theory.

First, not to be pedantic - but natural law is established solely by rigorous and repeated measurement in science.  Nothing more.  No hypothesis, no nothing.  We know about this natural law by measuring and observing water's behavior at rest, repeatedly over the past several hundred years.  It is still readily demonstrable today as it always was - use any apparatus you like (just make sure it measures the damn water!) - and because there exists no measurement to refute the law - it stands today as it has for centuries.

In order for the posit of the earth being spherical, waters surface MUST curve in an eternally sustained convex curvature at rest as required by the globe model (and calculated / defined within it).  It is all well and good to say something happens, and you're like - totally sure about it - but in science we require validation and in this case that can only come from direct measurement that does not exist and, if it did, would contradict a known and readily demonstrable scientific law.

I'm afraid our conversation is inflating a lot, so please don't feel pressure to respond to every single one of my points. I hope all the fluff is useful to help us get acquainted at least   I'll give you my top 3 questions/arguments, and then maybe you can do the same for me

.

Cool.  Good things take time.  Yes, I think fluff and acquaintance is valuable in this context.

1) What is your proof that NASA lied?
2) Can you explain in more depth about the hydrostatics?
3) If NASA was able to pull off the greatest scientific hoax of all time with such great success, how can we ever believe what any scientific organization ever tells us again?

1.  I would recommend starting with the wiki, as it provides a good overview.  The evidences that I find most compelling (which we will likely need to discuss further to fully convey) are the fact that "the infinite sky vacuum above our heads"/"space" writ-large is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws, the notable whistleblowers/critics that wound up murdered, and the copious amounts of faked footage.
2.  Yes!  Do I need to?  I am most happy to answer any specific question you may have (if I can) and there is a lot to talk about!  Roughly in order for the world to be potentially spherical, and the shape and composition we believe and have mapped - the surface of oceans and other large bodies of water at rest must curve in a sustained convex shape that has never been measured and doing so would violate a natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries.  The mere fact that this measurement does not exist should seriously concern/worry any empirical scientist worth their salt.
3.  My suggestion - trust, but verify! Irreproducible "science" is not science at all.  In any case, NASA is not really a scientific organization, they just play one on tv. It is a MIC organization.

I'll have to give more thought to specific questions/comments to respond with, I'm spent for now!

[jack44556677]

@james38

A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :

I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.

It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity.  Rejoice! You have your data already.  Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist.  We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science.  It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science.  It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.

I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth thoery since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.

I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things.  The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.

Now suppose NHWA (National Hydronautics and Water Administration) goes and conducts this test... I think you see where I am going with this. What would stop you from just disbelieving those scientists?

Nothing!  Though because science requires no (and is hindered by) trust, it isn't relevant.  My guideline is, trust - but verify.  If their findings can't, won't and/or have not been repeated independently - they aren't science at all.  In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward.  I recommend performing the observations/measurements on a large lake that was, ideally, frozen under mostly still conditions.  You would not be the first to conduct such measurements, nor should you be the last.  There is no substitute for real knowledge that only rigorous and validated experience can provide.

I think your disbelief in NASA is, in fact, the most foundational and unifying proposition in your camp.

It is a common and defensible view, however it is not really required to be wrong about the shape of the world.  I say that for the purposes of scientific discussion, irreproducible "science" with no oversight - like the footage we receive from NASA et al is not admissible in the discussion on those grounds alone.  Speculation (and even evidence) as to hoaxes/fraud and the rest of it are tangential and not central to the topic.

Yes yes yes, we can!

No, we most certainly can not.  Let's say the picture is valid and real.  Perhaps (pictures can never serve as the sole evidence/proof - but hypothetically speaking...), merely with that one picture, we have established that antarctica is not a ring that encircles the world (which was merely a speculation anyway) - but we have a LOT more world to cover in order to establish the shape of the entire thing! Right?

The only possible way that this picture exists at the same time as the earth not being a globe is if the picture is a hoax.

Whenever you catch yourself, or anyone else, talking about how no other interpretation of the data/phenomenon is possible (or anything is impossible, really) - you are most likely suffering from bias and a lack of imagination.  It is all to do with arthur c clarke's first law.  The picture could indeed be quite real, the world could still be flat, and antarctica is just not a ring that encircles the world!  There is almost never only one possible explanation, at least in potentia.

But tell me how this is falsifiable

Trust is a funny thing.  You can spend a lifetime building it, and then in one mistake/f*up/violation of it and "poof" - up it goes.  The entity of NASA had full trust, the way only hubris and nationalistic pride could ever assure and deliver.  They violated it repeatedly. The trust was theirs to lose - and they lost the absolute hell out of it.  This is of course, all a matter of historical record - though there are contemporary examples as well.

I recognize, as you most likely do, that it is a one way ticket - and this isn't really right.  Trust is very hard to build, but once violated it is almost impossible to restore.  Even the mere accusation of violating trust (no smoke without fire, or so the gullible meat puppets believe) is enough to ruin/tarnish most people forever.  This is not a scientific aspect or assessment however, as trust plays no role in science except detriment.  Nasa, largely, doesn't practice science, and it has no science to share.  They are merely a production company that makes propagandist footage and spectacle, but I do not expect and do not want you to take my word, nor any others, on this.  Nothing can be accepted, regardless of source, without adequate validation first!

[james38]

Before I give you a full response, can you tell me what MIC is so I can look it up?

[jack44556677]

Absolutely!  Please don't be shy about questions!

The MIC is an acronym first coined/popularized by eisenhower in his televised farewell address.

It stands for military industrial complex.  It will take you quite some time to research it thoroughly, but it is very important to understand and well worth the effort required.  Please let me know if you have any specific questions about it!

[RonJ]

@james38

A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :

I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.

It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity.  Rejoice! You have your data already.  Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist.  We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science.  It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science.  It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.

I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth theory since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.

I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things.  The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.

I have personally measured the curvature  (convex) of the Earth's oceans using gyroscopes.  This technology has been around a long time and the readings have been verified as accurate.
The only possible conclusion is that the Earth is round or using a gyroscope isn't a legitimate measurement technique.

[james38]

Ah, ok! I know about the military-industrial complex, just never heard of the acronym.

Firstly thank you again for a thoughtful response! I'm sorry I can't respond to every part, I enjoy reading it and find a lot of what you are saying agreeable.

I'll start by asserting that words do not have exact meanings but only family resemblances (like Wittgenstein said). We still should attempt to agree on working definitions for words. But until we come to that point of agreement, we ought not to lean in too much to our working own working definitions. I am a researcher and in my lab we use the word "debate" constantly. You say that "Debate has formal rules, like all games.". I say we are simply not talking about the same thing, and are slipping into a semantics argument. The scientific "debates" I participate in aren't really what you are describing. Similarly, you hear the word "belief" and associate the word differently than I do. I associate "belief" with logic, not faith. You say "The claims I make are validated as correct and supported through and by research, and do not rely upon belief." meanwhile I'd say "I will believe whatever is validated as correct and supported through and by research". You say "belief has no place in knowledge/fact". I say "My beliefs are determined by my knowledge/facts". I hope I'm being clear in that I'm not saying you are wrong in your definitions, but that the conversation becomes convoluted and off-topic if we push our own exact definitions of words.

So I suggest that instead of fixating on words, we both try to understand the deeper views that the other has, and together let's iron out exactly how we can think so differently that we both come to different conclusions about how much we know about the shape of our world. I hope that both of us can learn some things in the process.

Pushing aside the mistranslation of Socrates (interesting!), we both agree that absolute knowledge is impossible but strive to approach it as much as possible through the scientific method. As you say, "There is only one way to [determine the shape of the world].". If I understand correctly, you mean the scientific method:

(changes bolded)
1. Given a falsifiable posit / theory to explain a phenomenon,
2. Generate a hypothesis that is capable of confirming without a doubt that the theory is false
3. Run an experiment to test that hypothesis, which will either disprove the theory or fail or disprove it

You challenged the linkage between theories and hypotheses. Again, I don't want to fixate too much on semantics. I think if you want to replace theory with posit, that will work just the same. But my deepest point here is that the purpose of a hypothesis is to test the falsifiable aspect of a theory. Absolute knowledge is impossible, so good hypotheses attempt to disprove falsifiable theories rather than prove them. As you say, "If the hypothesis is not solidly connected/comprised in the theory, this deduction may be unsound.". I completely agree.

Without studying and critically evaluating those foundations, laid in bygone eras, you may be building on sand.

Interesting story about Newton and a good point overall. I'm not going get very far trying to say that historical thinkers aren't important, and I think knew while I was writing that we don't care what Plato said that I'd probably regret it. I'll backtrack and just say I don't think he's relevant or plays a role in my belief in the world's shape. I know the greeks are all a big part of your historical explanation for how globe theory came about. And I'm not going to dispute any of that, because my views do not contradict the possibility that all of that is true - we could have believed the world was round without evidence for millennia, but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence today.

To be honest, on a philosophical level I think we are mostly on the same page. I'm satisfied we both respect and understand the scientific method and I am comfortable moving on to specific evidence at this point. I do think some of this, especially falsifiability might bubble up. But we'll see.

So onto the science...

There exists about as much "proof" that the entire world is spherical as it is flat.

The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

Possibly, but they come from a demonstrably (and repeatedly) untrustworthy source.  The sad truth is they are the ONLY evidence (supposedly that remains).

Space doesn't exist except on tv, and I know how wild that sounds.

Pictures are also a suspect form of evidence, as I have many pictures of the loch ness monster and bigfoot.  For this reason, they can never serve as the sole evidence or "proof", as they essentially MUST in the case of "space" writ-large.

that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old (or at least was until the 50's/60's, if you believe what you see on tv)

Now I really want to get to the bottom of our disagreement over the NASA expeditions. Getting to that later.

No, we most certainly can not.  Let's say the picture is valid and real.  Perhaps (pictures can never serve as the sole evidence/proof - but hypothetically speaking...), merely with that one picture, we have established that antarctica is not a ring that encircles the world (which was merely a speculation anyway) - but we have a LOT more world to cover in order to establish the shape of the entire thing! Right?

What do you think about south pole, like the literal one that people can visit as well as the scientific research labs scattered around Antarctica? Are these fake or real? If they are real, wouldn't you agree they are inconsistent with a "ice wall" theory? And also about Antarctica, you mentioned that the existence of it is not proof of globe theory. Ok, so what is the best explanation that you can think of on how Antarctica can exist while the earth is not a globe? You said hypothetically there could be more world to cover. But I mean specifically, where is Antarctica if not a ring and if not at the south pole? At least the ice wall/ring theory explains how both Argentina and New Zealand can both be so close to it at the same time.

So you were totally right. My eyes opened up when I was reading the bit from tfes wiki conspiracy page. It's not as inherently absurd as I thought it would be! Reading it felt like a mini psychological thriller. But let's focus on the evidence...

You might be surprised how little the world changes when our mere conceptions of it do.  If the world is flat, then everything we observe happens on a flat earth.  No contradictions, no issues, no stress.
Nothing in science depends on the sphericity of the earth the way it is preached in the mythology.  No technology relies on it, etc.

The posit and conclusion (that the earth most likely cannot be spherical) can be falsified, yes.  It can also be demonstrated, historically, that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old

And yet nothing so fantastic or grandiose [as a global elitist conspiracy] is in any way necessitated.  The wiki here does a good job describing how the "conspiracy" need not be very large, nor specifically pertaining to the shape of the world.  The MIC is quite real in any case, and is not a trustworthy source.

We are dipping into the hypothetical here, however a large coordinated conspiracy is not necessitated.  Thorough compartmentalization can be employed to keep virtually everyone in the dark, and the key players only with limited access/information and unending surveillance - all speculation of course.  No conspiracy is really required at all to take pictures with normal lenses at high altitude and mistake barrel distortion for the "curvature of the earth" you expected to see there due to conditioning through rote from childhood under the guise of education.  As I said, people have no trouble being wrong - and it requires no conspiracy.

No, we wouldn't HAVE to assume [that their would be widespread lying and brainwashing, and no leaks].  Humanity requires no help to be constantly stupid and wrong.  In any case, in regards to the fabrication of "space" and the "space age" there have been "leaks" - and some bad things happened to them.  Regardless, you can have leaks all day long, as long as no one does anything substantive about them - remember edward snowden?

So you were right that the wiki provides a great overview. I'm starting to understand more where you are coming from. Believing in "the conspiracy" (faked space expeditions) seems less absurd to me than it used to!

So you posit that NASA's expeditions were faked. I posit they were not. I would love to exchange some evidence.

I'll start with a section straight from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings, "Existence and age of Moon rocks". Just go and read it, it's only a short paragraph. I see this as an example of some simple and straightforward evidence from multiple 3rd party sources that verify that NASA did collect moon rocks. Do you deny this?

Now, let's look at some evidence for the staging of the landings that you mentioned...

The evidences that I find most compelling (which we will likely need to discuss further to fully convey) are the fact that "the infinite sky vacuum above our heads"/"space" writ-large is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws, the notable whistleblowers/critics that wound up murdered, and the copious amounts of faked footage.

I'd just like specifics...

1. "space" violates natural laws: please be more specific
2. notable whistleblowers/critics wound up murdered: who?
3. faked footage: show me?

Well, you can't really believe anything the MIC says - ever.

Everyone knows not to trust the government

It's interesting hearing your biases. In my opinion, these views are extreme. I'll leave it at that.

I mentioned that very same concern above!  Without that rock-solid established linkage between them, there is no necessary relevance/pertinence to the results of testing the hypothesis on the greater theory.

First, not to be pedantic - but natural law is established solely by rigorous and repeated measurement in science.  Nothing more.  No hypothesis, no nothing.  We know about this natural law by measuring and observing water's behavior at rest, repeatedly over the past several hundred years.  It is still readily demonstrable today as it always was - use any apparatus you like (just make sure it measures the damn water!) - and because there exists no measurement to refute the law - it stands today as it has for centuries.

Not really, however, it would suggest against it.  Establishing this measurement would allow for spherical to be a possible shape of the world.  Without that measurement, there is nothing empirical or scientific about the globe posit.

2.  Yes!  Do I need to?  I am most happy to answer any specific question you may have (if I can) and there is a lot to talk about!  Roughly in order for the world to be potentially spherical, and the shape and composition we believe and have mapped - the surface of oceans and other large bodies of water at rest must curve in a sustained convex shape that has never been measured and doing so would violate a natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries.  The mere fact that this measurement does not exist should seriously concern/worry any empirical scientist worth their salt.

It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity.  Rejoice! You have your data already.  Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist.  We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science.  It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science.  It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.

In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward.  I recommend performing the observations/measurements on a large lake that was, ideally, frozen under mostly still conditions. You would not be the first to conduct such measurements, nor should you be the last.  There is no substitute for real knowledge that only rigorous and validated experience can provide.

I'm intrigued by the convex experiments you've been talking about. So I looked up and found parallel articles about past experiments:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bedford_Level_experiment

The story in both articles are similar except that the tfes article excludes the final part where Oldham reproduces Wallaces results. Why is this? Surely the author of that tfes article must have had some reason to exclude that crucial information about Oldham's experiment. Did they have reason to believe Oldham's experiment was not verified? If so, why is there no comment on it, unless the writer of the tfes article had an agenda to select evidence in support of their view.

So do you see your frozen lake experiment as being a continuation of these studies? And do the articles I linked above perhaps miss any other experiments that have been conducted since then?

[fisherman]

The story in both articles are similar except that the tfes article excludes the final part where Oldham reproduces Wallaces results. Why is this? Surely the author of that tfes article must have had some reason to exclude that crucial information about Oldham's experiment. Did they have reason to believe Oldham's experiment was not verified? If so, why is there no comment on it, unless the writer of the tfes article had an agenda to select evidence in support of their view.

Here is another Bedford Level type experiment that you might find interesting.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward.

Its disingenuous to invoke hydrostatic law in your argument, when hydrostatics specifically account for the influence of gravity.

[RhesusVX]

I literally just joined here today, not to troll, but because I'm fascinated by the beliefs and rationale behind them.  This thread is very long and I had to skim it, but the following caught my attention:

It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.

Correct.  The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

I'd also never considered that [some] people are just very skeptical of the globe theory as opposed to simply believing that the Earth is flat, or a flat disc.  However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.

I can totally understand why, back in historical times, people would posit that the Earth was a round, flat disc, with the atmosphere and celestial bodies being part of what they call the firmament.  With no other knowledge or experience of the Earth and all above it, that's a reasonable posit.  However, as time goes on and we get more and more experience, more empirical data, more science to prove/disprove things, there has to come a point where such evidence can't just be ignored or explained away by incompatible theories.

There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:

1. The Sun and Moon don't change in size as they move across the sky.  In FET, they would change in size as they move towards and away from us.
2. The Sun and Moon rise/set above/below the horizon.  In FET, they would just stay at the same linear path across the sky, getting smaller and dimmer.
3. We get eclipses.  In FET, it's not possible to get Eclipses.
4. Different parts of the Earth experience different seasons at the same time.  In FET it would be the same season everywhere.
5. Different parts of the Earth observe different constellations.  In FET we would all see the same ones.
6. Sticks of identical length but in different parts of the Earth cast different length shadows at the same time of day.  In FET the shadows would be the same length everywhere.
7. Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.  In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship.
8. Measurement of actual distances between countries shows that the distance between lines of longitude are longest at the equator, then get shorter as you go north AND shorter when you go south.  In FET the distance between them can only increase as you go from the north (centre) to the ice wall (outer edge)
9. Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour.  In FET there would be no measured rotation.
10. We only ever see one face of the moon no matter where you are on Earth.  In FET, if the Moon were accepted as being a sphere, different people would see different faces of the moon depending on their location.  If the Moon were accepted as being a disc, different people would see a different shaped moon, round when direct, elliptical when viewed at an angle.

ALL of the above can only be explained by the Earth being a globe, rotating about a titled axis once every 24 hours, itself orbited by a tidally locked Moon while collectively orbiting the Sun once every 364.25 days.  Not only does one simple globe model quite elegantly support ALL of the above, it does so with the ability to predict the exact occurrence of celestial events well into the future.  Further, we have actual photographic evidence of the Earth from space to back up the findings that indicate the Earth is indeed round.

To simply dispute those facts, whether you believe in a flat Earth or not, makes no sense to me.  I mean sure, don't believe everything you are shown and told right, especially on the internet?  But come on, we all have eyes, most of us can use them, and those who do can observe most of those proofs for themselves.  If FET could also accommodate them, with no "invisible moons" to cater for eclipses or other such incompatible workarounds like a "wall of ice" that hasn't been observed, then fair enough, debate away.  But this really shouldn't be a debate.

[james38]

Here is another Bedford Level type experiment that you might find interesting.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

Interesting. So now between this and Oldham, I'm seeing two experiments showing that large bodies of water have a non-zero convex. I'm curious to hear Jack's rebuttal on these.

There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:

I'm here for a similar reason. But I can assure you people probably have lengthy responses to a lot of these. And no matter if you believe the world is flat or a globe, I don't think any of us have the time or capacity to process all of them at once... Why don't you pick just one item from the list you made for an in-depth discussion, and see where it goes from there?

[RhesusVX]

I'm here for a similar reason. But I can assure you people probably have lengthy responses to a lot of these. And no matter if you believe the world is flat or a globe, I don't think any of us have the time or capacity to process all of them at once... Why don't you pick just one item from the list you made for an in-depth discussion, and see where it goes from there?

Oh you're absolutely right, and that's good advice man, I shall see if I can create a thread that addresses one of these and see if it gets any traction and logical, sensible discussion.  Probably best to do a search first though, lol

[Mark Antony]

I'm not going to derail the debate between @James38 and @jack44556677 as I find it very interesting. I just thought I would make some observations.

While the above posts go into a lot of detail as to what constitutes a theory or an acceptable or verifiable source. I'm glad that the fundamental differences lie in competing photographic and video evidence for and against FET. The only debates I've had in the past were futile efforts with globe fundamentalists who have nothing but distain for FET (so the above debate is a breath of fresh air to me). One of the brick walls I come up against in these debates was when using photographic or video evidence. Usually at this point I get dismissed for presenting videos rather than "real science" such as what is found in peer reviewed scientific journals (the debate always gets very sour when I ask for peer reviewed articles in support of the globe theory in return) And that's where the debate usually ends.

 I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:



Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.

@James38 - the pictures of Antarctica you linked us are physically impossible to acquire. Just look at how the earth is illuminated - almost perfect uniform lighting over an entire hemisphere. This is not possible at any time of day. The complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth is another tell-tale sign.

I'm new to this forum and am not familiar with what is or not in the wiki, I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. But I would like to touch on the thermodynamic impossibilities relating to the infinite vacuum of space that @jack44556677 touched on. This vacuum has always been a thorn in NASA's side - specifically in relation to the space suits and rocket trajectories. I'll give one example without getting into the mathematics behind it (I can if you want). A spacesuit in the vaccuum of space would create such a powerful pressure differential that (if it didn't destroy the suit) would render it so incredibly rigid that no human could maneuvre inside it. The pressure inside a basketball is 7.5PSI, the pressure inside a spacesuit would be double this at least (if you take the flawed assumption that space is 0psi). People became wise to this so NASA had to introduce a depressurisation step (all of this post the moonlanding era) which also required pumping pure oxygen into the suit to prevent the astronaut from getting the bends from the pressure drop. This is one of many holes that NASA have had to patch over the years. They can't keep up with the general public's progressively higher understanding of physics, so they have to keep painting over the cracks and explain themselves out of situations. But they have nothing to fear, because for as long as 99% people believe the images they publish they don't really have to explain themselves all that well at all.

In relation to it being too big a secret for so many people to have, I completely agree with what @jack44556677 said above. There is no mass conspiracy here. NASA is little more than a conglomerate of different projects (most of which is likely very useful research). Each scientist is completely isolated from other projects - they don't have to be in on anything. Even the person who makes the fake footage doesn't have to be in on it. Lets say I'm a very talented video editor. I get approached from a NASA representative who says "Our astronauts are so busy doing research on the ISS that they have no time to shoot videos in space for the benefit of the public. I want to offer you a 12 month contract to create some digestable marketing material that publicizes the great work we do here at NASA". I would be delighted for the opportunity and wouldn't dare question the means in which NASA use the footage as I would likely break my contract and lose my reimbursement. Does this seem like such an intangible scenario?

[Mark Antony]

I literally just joined here today, not to troll, but because I'm fascinated by the beliefs and rationale behind them.  This thread is very long and I had to skim it, but the following caught my attention:

It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.

Correct.  The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

I'd also never considered that [some] people are just very skeptical of the globe theory as opposed to simply believing that the Earth is flat, or a flat disc.  However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.

I can totally understand why, back in historical times, people would posit that the Earth was a round, flat disc, with the atmosphere and celestial bodies being part of what they call the firmament.  With no other knowledge or experience of the Earth and all above it, that's a reasonable posit.  However, as time goes on and we get more and more experience, more empirical data, more science to prove/disprove things, there has to come a point where such evidence can't just be ignored or explained away by incompatible theories.

There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:

1. The Sun and Moon don't change in size as they move across the sky.  In FET, they would change in size as they move towards and away from us.
2. The Sun and Moon rise/set above/below the horizon.  In FET, they would just stay at the same linear path across the sky, getting smaller and dimmer.
3. We get eclipses.  In FET, it's not possible to get Eclipses.
4. Different parts of the Earth experience different seasons at the same time.  In FET it would be the same season everywhere.
5. Different parts of the Earth observe different constellations.  In FET we would all see the same ones.
6. Sticks of identical length but in different parts of the Earth cast different length shadows at the same time of day.  In FET the shadows would be the same length everywhere.
7. Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.  In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship.
8. Measurement of actual distances between countries shows that the distance between lines of longitude are longest at the equator, then get shorter as you go north AND shorter when you go south.  In FET the distance between them can only increase as you go from the north (centre) to the ice wall (outer edge)
9. Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour.  In FET there would be no measured rotation.
10. We only ever see one face of the moon no matter where you are on Earth.  In FET, if the Moon were accepted as being a sphere, different people would see different faces of the moon depending on their location.  If the Moon were accepted as being a disc, different people would see a different shaped moon, round when direct, elliptical when viewed at an angle.

ALL of the above can only be explained by the Earth being a globe, rotating about a titled axis once every 24 hours, itself orbited by a tidally locked Moon while collectively orbiting the Sun once every 364.25 days.  Not only does one simple globe model quite elegantly support ALL of the above, it does so with the ability to predict the exact occurrence of celestial events well into the future.  Further, we have actual photographic evidence of the Earth from space to back up the findings that indicate the Earth is indeed round.

To simply dispute those facts, whether you believe in a flat Earth or not, makes no sense to me.  I mean sure, don't believe everything you are shown and told right, especially on the internet?  But come on, we all have eyes, most of us can use them, and those who do can observe most of those proofs for themselves.  If FET could also accommodate them, with no "invisible moons" to cater for eclipses or other such incompatible workarounds like a "wall of ice" that hasn't been observed, then fair enough, debate away.  But this really shouldn't be a debate.

I'm also new here. I don't mean to be rude but the fact that you don't have the answers to those questions does not mean you have proof that the earth is a globe, it just means you need to brush up on flat earth theory:

1. Not sure why you think the sun and moon would change size in FET. It's all perspective and positioning relative to the sun and moon. There is no real difference here between globe and flat earth theory
2. One thing is known for sure in FET, the sun moves beyond your vanishing point. Your view of the sun can be completely obscured by a mountain or a crest of a wave when it moves far enough away. No matter how high it is, if it is far enough away it will be at such a small viewing angle from your perspective that a very small object is enough to obscure it's view from you. Not sure how the moon works myself.
3. In FET, eclipses are not what you think they are. I'm not sure myself
4. Not true re. FET. The seasons change because the sun changes it's distance from the centre (or a different phenomenon happens that we are not aware of yet)
5. Not sure where you got this assumption with FET and constellations
6. This doesn't make any sense to me
7. You think ships disappear from the bottom up but the boat is simply getting obscured by the crests of the waves due to the angle at which you are observing it. Then it subsequently leaves your vanishing point.
8. Not sure what you mean by this
9. There is no rotation claimed in FET. (And also the means in which rotation is measured in globe theory is hotly debated)
10. Not sure what you mean by this. You are projecting what you think FET is and accepting this as the FET argument.

[RhesusVX]

I'm also new here. I don't mean to be rude but the fact that you don't have the answers to those questions does not mean you have proof that the earth is a globe, it just means you need to brush up on flat earth theory:

1. Not sure why you think the sun and moon would change size in FET. It's all perspective and positioning relative to the sun and moon. There is no real difference here between globe and flat earth theory
2. One thing is known for sure in FET, the sun moves beyond your vanishing point. Your view of the sun can be completely obscured by a mountain or a crest of a wave when it moves far enough away. No matter how high it is, if it is far enough away it will be at such a small viewing angle from your perspective that a very small object is enough to obscure it's view from you. Not sure how the moon works myself.
3. In FET, eclipses are not what you think they are. I'm not sure myself
4. Not true re. FET. The seasons change because the sun changes it's distance from the centre (or a different phenomenon happens that we are not aware of yet)
5. Not sure where you got this assumption with FET and constellations
6. This doesn't make any sense to me
7. You think ships disappear from the bottom up but the boat is simply getting obscured by the crests of the waves due to the angle at which you are observing it. Then it subsequently leaves your vanishing point.
8. Not sure what you mean by this
9. There is no rotation claimed in FET. (And also the means in which rotation is measured in globe theory is hotly debated)
10. Not sure what you mean by this. You are projecting what you think FET is and accepting this as the FET argument.

Hi Mark, thanks for your time and reply.  With all due respect, we live in a round Earth society.  A single, simple, elegant model exists of the world that accounts for all observations and is backed up by repeatable experimentation, carried out by multiple different people over the millennia.  My posting those questions isn't me saying "here you go, proof that the Earth is round", it's challenging the notion that the Earth is flat.  Similar, but different.  Indeed, I've done a lot of reading up in the Wiki while I've been here, and it would seem that you would benefit too because a lot of what you use in support of FET is somewhat incorrect.  Perhaps my earlier points were not clear so I'll do my best to clarify against both perspectives.

• I'm not sure you understand how perspective and parallax works.  Notice when you are in a car and look out of the side window, the trees close to you are whizzing past, but the mountains in the distance hardly seem to move?  Now look out of the front window.  Notice how the trees grow in apparent size rapidly when they get close to you, but the mountains in the distance remain the same size.  In RET, the Sun and Moon are large and far away, so they don't change their angular size.  This is what you observe in reality  In FET, they are small and close, and as you contradicted yourself in point 2, must change in angular size as they move towards or away from you.  What can explain why they don't change size under FET is the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) theory.  Have a read of it in the Wiki, it explains a lot of the equivalences.
• In FET, the Sun is, and remains at roughly 3,000 miles above the Earth.  If the Sun is to ever move behind anything, it would have to be 3,000 miles tall, regardless of how far away the Sun is or whatever its angular size, which you agreed gets smaller the further away it gets.  This is not what we see in reality.  In reality we see a fixed size Sun get cut off at the horizon.  Again, EA theory can partially explain this away.
• Well, I can tell you what I do know now.  In FET, a solar eclipse is the same thing as in RET - the moon passing in front of the Sun (albeit on weird trajectories).  A lunar eclipse under RET is simply the Earth casting a shadow on the surface of the Moon.  A lunar eclipse under FET is, yep, you guessed it, a consequence of the EA theory where the Moon just moves out of the path of the curved sunlight.
• Exactly, the Sun changing its position relative to the centre of a flat Earth by an unknown mechanism, or a globe Earth rotating about a tilted axis, simply orbiting the Sun under know laws of motion and gravitation.  Again, the two are equivalent, but take your pick.
• The "assumption" is formed on the basis that the entire flat Earth is said to be contained under some kind of dome, and the stars are simply points of light in that dome. Bear in mind that in reality, we know the stars remain in fixed positions relative to the Earth, that the stars we see change throughout the year, and that the Northern Hemisphere has one view of the stars, and the Southern Hemisphere has a different view.  If the Earth was flat, and the stars were on a dome above it, every part of the Earth would be able to see ALL the same stars.  It doesn't, although I'm sure bendy light will explain that one too.
• Look up Eratosthenes and his experiment to calculate the circumference of the globe (or diameter of the flat Earth as is proposed here).  The general idea is that if you had a stick on a round Earth, pointing directly at the Sun overhead, you wouldn't see any shadow, right?  A stick of identical length on a different part of the round Earth at the same time would be pointing away from the Sun, and so it would cast a shadow.  This is because the Sun is millions of miles away and produces essentially parallel rays of light.  Under FET, the only way this observation can be explained is by the close placement of the Sun resulting in diverging rays (and possibly the EA as well, I'm not 100% on this one yet).
• Well no, there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there.  Under FET, if I'm at sea level viewing a ship, the vertical angle I'm observing it at never changes. All that would happen is the ship would get smaller.  Just like your flawed analogy with the Sun getting obscured in point 2, those waves would have to be as high as the ship to obscure it, which implies that the further out to sea you get, the bigger the waves get.  It's rather the opposite on Earth isn't it?  EA tries to explain why it disappears from the bottom up, but fails because if EA were true, the entire ship would just slowly fade out of view as its light rays curved away from you.
• Get yourself a model of a globe.  Those horizontal lines are lines of latitude.  On a globe Earth they describe how close you are to the North/South poles.  Pick one of the lines of latitude North, say 45 degrees, and draw two points on it using the lines of longitude as a guide.  Pick the same latitude in the Southern hemisphere, 45 degrees South, and again, put two marks at the same lines of longitude.  Those sets of points you drew are the same distance apart in the North and South, agreed?  This matches what we observe in reality when traveling between countries.  Now, do the same thing but on a map of the flat Earth. Pick the same lines of latitude and the same lines of longitude to mark your points.  Now what you'll find is that the distances between the two points are closer together in the North and further apart in the South.  This is not consistent with what we see in reality using known, measured distances between countries.
• Under RET, Earth rotates.  Under FET, it does not.  Look up ring laser gyroscopes, see how they have been used to measure the rotation of the Earth, accurately and repeatedly, in line with millennia of additional scientific observation that obeys all known laws of motion.  Denying something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't correct.  The burden of proof is on those who are doubting such scientific evidence.
• Simple observation for you.  Hang a football on a piece of string from the ceiling in your room and paint the football with different colours around it.  That's a representation of the Moon above the flat Earth.  Now get some friends or family members to sit in different parts of your room around the ball (just as people are all under, but also around the Moon in FET) and get them to tell you what they see.  I can guarantee you that they will all say different colours.  EA cannot explain that one away I'm afraid.  If you want to replicate what you see in real life, take that same football and hang it from a tree at one end of your garden.  Take those same friends/family members and all stand as far back as you can at the other end of the garden.  Now you all see pretty much the same side and hence colours the football, give or take given that the relative distances aren't to scale.  This is what we all observe in reality, one side of a sphere, which concludes that the Moon cannot be directly above a flat Earth within the boundaries of the disc.

Hope that helps, and one last point for thought - what force keeps the Sun and Moon up in the Sky?  RET has a full model for motion and gravitation that explains it, and is so accurate that it can predict their future positions, along with the stars and planets.  I've not seen anything in FET to explain what prevents the Sun and Moon from just falling down.  Are they on wires hanging from the dome?  Who hung them there?  How?