[Opeo]

(This thread is sort of part 2 to this thread here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9253.0 , which served its purpose and then devolved into arguing about solar eclipses.)

For about four to five hundred years, mainstream science has been in fairly unanimous agreement on a globe model that would look familiar to the one in your 3rd-grade classroom. Obviously things like the size of the Earth were discovered millennia before that and the shape of the New World and far East hadn't been totally ironed out yet, but by 1507 Martin Waldseemüller had a globe that looked like this:
Clearly, by that point all the major elements were there. By the 18th century it was only the far north and Australia that look a bit off to modern eyes:


The flat Earth hypothesis, strangely, doesn't appear to have a universally-agreed-upon map. The most common one, based on the North-azimuthal equidistant projection of a globe (the one on the U.N. flag and logo of the F.E.S.) has been pretty clearly proven false. It can't explain relatively simple things such as seasonal day lengths, the southern celestial pole near Sigma Octantis, or flight lengths between destinations south of the equator.

The only other possible model I've seen, the bi-polar model, still seems pretty niche even among the community, and I've only seen it brought up as sort of the token "other possible model" rather than as a real hypothesis.


Is there any on-going effort by FE researchers to discover what a map of the Earth should look like under their model? If the Earth is flat, it should be easier to develop than a map of the globe model as they wouldn't need to accept the distortion inherent in making a 2D drawing of a 3D object like the RE cartographers have dealt with throughout history. So where is it?

[Pete Svarrior]

The most common one, based on the North-azimuthal equidistant projection of a globe (the one on the U.N. flag and logo of the F.E.S.) has been pretty clearly proven false. It can't explain relatively simple things such as seasonal day lengths, the southern celestial pole near Sigma Octantis, or flight lengths between destinations south of the equator.

That's a nice opinion you have there. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we will continue to not give a toss about whether a RE'er thinks FET has been proven false.

[Beorn]

The wiki explains all those things.

[Opeo]

The most common one, based on the North-azimuthal equidistant projection of a globe (the one on the U.N. flag and logo of the F.E.S.) has been pretty clearly proven false. It can't explain relatively simple things such as seasonal day lengths, the southern celestial pole near Sigma Octantis, or flight lengths between destinations south of the equator.

That's a nice opinion you have there. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we will continue to not give a toss about whether a RE'er thinks FET has been proven false.

I'm not sure what my stance has to do with it. Science should be a discussion of ideas, not a pissing match between two teams who are trying to trick each other to win.

Regardless, no one has been able to offer any solutions to the glaring problems with the theory in the multiple threads we've had recently, and even in the last thread Baby Thork said the only reason it's still represented in the wiki is:

Because we're too lazy to change it.

And Tom responded on one of my arguments:

It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.

I'm pretty sure we have said that the commonly used map and model is just a visualized example numerous times...

So it looks like it's not just an REer who realizes it's been proven wrong. If you're going to continue to argue for this position, shouldn't you either address the issues or look for a different model that doesn't have them? It just weakens your position unnecessarily to cling to a model that can't explain seasons without addressing it.

The wiki explains all those things.

Unfortunately, most of the wiki pages still focus on the North-azimuthal projection and are thus woefully out of date. There's fairly little about other models.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm not sure what my stance has to do with it. Science should be a discussion of ideas, not a pissing match between two teams who are trying to trick each other to win.

Consider the following. I assert that gravity has been clearly disproved because it has been observed time and time again that ordinary apples don't actually fall down to the ground. My assertion is worthless. Similarly, your opinion that FET has been disproved is worthless, since it relies on RE strawmanning of the theory. I'm thoroughly disinterested in this tactic.

in the last thread Baby Thork said the only reason it's still represented in the wiki is:

Because we're too lazy to change it.

You clearly took that answer far too seriously. You were unwilling to accept other responses, so he fobbed you off with a sarcastic one. Unsurprising, really.

It's also very disingenuous of you to try to present this post without its follow-up. He provides you with a much more serious and detailed response just a couple of posts further on!

And Tom responded on one of my arguments:

It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.

Tom does subscribe to an alternative model of the Flat Earth, and that's fine. Not sure what you're hoping to achieve there tbh. Are you saying that he shouldn't be allowed to state his own views?

So it looks like it's not just an REer who realizes it's been proven wrong.

Yes, people who do not subscribe to a certain model do not subscribe to said model. I'm not sure how we could make this any clearer. Much like RE'ers are free to make their case here, so are proponents of alternative FETs. Why on Earth would you view that as a bad thing?

Unfortunately, most of the wiki pages still focus on the North-azimuthal projection and are thus woefully out of date. There's fairly little about other models.

It's not out of date, and it's not a projection. As for other models, it would have to be their proponents who'd have to document them - perhaps instead of complaining about it here you should reach out to them and encourage to draft something up? You don't expect me to play devil's advocate for models which contradict my own understanding of the world, do you? I have made an open offer to set up pages for alternative models should we receive some content for them. It's still standing.

As always, your problem is that people who aren't you don't share your priorities. Unfortunately, you'll have to accept people's individualism.

[Opeo]

I'm not sure what my stance has to do with it. Science should be a discussion of ideas, not a pissing match between two teams who are trying to trick each other to win.

Consider the following. I assert that gravity has been clearly disproved because it has been observed time and time again that ordinary apples don't actually fall down to the ground. My assertion is worthless. Similarly, your opinion that FET has been disproved is worthless, since it relies on RE strawmanning of the theory. I'm thoroughly disinterested in this tactic.

I actually like this example, but I think it applies more to the other side here. I'm genuinely not trying to be smarmy smug asshole here, try and see it from my perspective. There's been multiple threads recently where we discussed the seasons issue, and not once has an explanation been raised that could reconcile common observations and the North-azimuthal projection. In order to progress from this point, we need to be able cut hypotheses that don't fit reality. Continuing to support the North-azimuthal at this point is the same thing as insisting apples don't fall from trees, since you're claiming a position that both sides have found to not match the evidence, and not providing any additional explanation for why you're doing so (such as showing off the anti-grav apple you have in your pocket).

I'm genuinely interested in talking about the FE hypothesis further. I think it's fascinating there can be two wildly different models that provide similar tangible, observable results. But if we can never agree that even one possible model is wrong because someone out there might still insist on it despite reality, then no real discussion can be had.

in the last thread Baby Thork said the only reason it's still represented in the wiki is:

Because we're too lazy to change it.

You clearly took that answer far too seriously. You were unwilling to accept other responses, so he fobbed you off with a sarcastic one. Unsurprising, really.

His further posts in that thread made it very clear he agreed the North-azimuthal view was flawed.

It's also very disingenuous of you to try to present this post without its follow-up. He provides you with a much more serious and detailed response just a couple of posts further on!

And I'm sure you can see I continued to participate with the discussion until the topic shifted to being about eclipses. I agree with his response about why no one has fixed the wiki, that's kind of what led me to make this thread to see if anyone here were doing more research despite the fractured climate.

And Tom responded on one of my arguments:

It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.

Tom does subscribe to an alternative model of the Flat Earth, and that's fine. Not sure what you're hoping to achieve there tbh. Are you saying that he shouldn't be allowed to state his own views?

"Views" (the way you appear to be using them) are something you have about politics or religion. We're talking about physics and astronomy here. I'm not interested in "well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine's different from Tom's and that's fine!" I'm interested in finding the truth.

So it looks like it's not just an REer who realizes it's been proven wrong.

Yes, people who do not subscribe to a certain model do not subscribe to a certain model.

See above. You're treating this like the answer is unknowable, which I eminently disagree with. There is a correct answer, and we have the tools to find it. Unfortunately for you, one of those tools is discounting failed models like the North-azimuthal one to focus on ones that still have a chance of being correct.

Unfortunately, most of the wiki pages still focus on the North-azimuthal projection and are thus woefully out of date. There's fairly little about other models.

It's not out of date, and it's not a projection. As for other models, it would have to be their proponents who'd have to document them - perhaps instead of complaining about it here you should reach out to them and encourage to draft something up? You don't expect me to play devil's advocate for models which contradict my own understanding of the world, do you?

No, but I guess I'd expect you to be objective about it given how you frequently post on the debate board and have publicly represented the Society to the press before. If you disagree with the premise that the model can be discounted, then post your reasons for believing so. If you don't have any counter-arguments then perhaps you should join in on looking for a new, less-flawed model.

[Pete Svarrior]

But if we can never agree that even one possible model is wrong because someone out there might still insist on it despite reality, then no real discussion can be had.

We disagree about whether or not any actual contradictions have been raised. I am not interested in your insistence to the positive, much like you're not interested in my insistence to the contrary.

His further posts in that thread made it very clear he agreed the North-azimuthal view was flawed.

Yes. Are you going to make a point of pointing out every single person who doesn't fully agree with the mainstream model? We might be here a while.

And I'm sure you can see I continued to participate with the discussion until the topic shifted to being about eclipses. I agree with his response about why no one has fixed the wiki

Then you had no business trying to misrepresent him, or deceive me. It would have benefited your case not to have attempted it.

"Views" (the way you appear to be using them) are something you have about politics or religion. We're talking about physics and astronomy here. I'm not interested in "well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine's different from Tom's and that's fine!" I'm interested in finding the truth.

Not at all. There is plenty of space for disagreement and difference of interpretation in the sciences. It's how we make progress. The "truth" is a nebulous term, which is why it's generally not used in literature.

See above. You're treating this like the answer is unknowable, which I eminently disagree with.

No, I'm not. I'm treating it as largely unknown.

Unfortunately for you, one of those tools is discounting failed models like the North-azimuthal one to focus on ones that still have a chance of being correct.

Ah, yes, here we go again with the "It's wrong! I already told you it's wrong!" meme. Sorry, kid, this isn't how this works. Your "proofs" are as disingenuous as your attempt at painting Thork in a bad light. I am not interested in them.

No, but I guess I'd expect you to be objective about it given how you frequently post on the debate board and have publicly represented the Society to the press before.

I do my best. Doesn't mean I'll write content I don't personally support. In fact, this is because I try to be objective. Many smarmy, small-minded RE'ers argue the subject by stating themselves what they understand to be the Flat Earth assertions, and then dismantling them. More often than not, they either misunderstood or misrepresented the model.

If you disagree with the premise that the model can be discounted, then post your reasons for believing so. If you don't have any counter-arguments then perhaps you should join in on looking for a new, less-flawed model.

I don't disagree with the premise that it could hypothetically be discounted. I disagree with the premise that it has been, or that your ilk have made any progress in that direction. At best, you've pointed out that there are some unknowns in the model.

Your demands are the equivalent of me demanding that you abandon General Relativity and look for a "less flawed model" because some anomalies have been found. It's a deplorable debating tactic, and the longer you insist on it, the more I'm thinking I should have carried on ignoring you as I had been before.

[Opeo]

Then you had no business trying to misrepresent him, or deceive me. It would have benefited your case not to have attempted it.

I didn't intentionally do so, I was just grabbing the shortest direct quote that showed he disagreed with the model. I do see how it was misleading now though, so my apologies to Thork on that, although the overall point on his stance towards it remains.

Not at all. There is plenty of space for disagreement and difference of interpretation in the sciences. It's how we make progress. The "truth" is a nebulous term, which is why it's generally not used in literature.

I disagree. The scientific method is designed as such to root out as much personal interpretation as possible, since all theories require so much hard evidence as backing. In new scientific endeavors with new hypotheses there is often disagreement, but over the years once a dominant theory forms there really isn't much room for personal disagreement. You'll be hard pressed to find a biologist that doesn't agree with the theory of evolution, for example.

No, I'm not. I'm treating it as largely unknown.

Which is bizarre to me. I'm asking for a map, not a grand unified theory of gravity. I'm really having difficulty figuring out why there's so much disagreement for something you'd think would be step 1 for a society like this.

Ah, yes, here we go again with the "It's wrong! I already told you it's wrong!" meme. Sorry, kid, this isn't how this works. Your "proofs" are as disingenuous as your attempt at painting Thork in a bad light. I am not interested in them.

Man, science would be so much easier if instead of proving your point you could just act smug and call the other side a meme.

I do my best. Doesn't mean I'll write content I don't personally support. In fact, this is because I try to be objective. Many smarmy, small-minded RE'ers argue the subject by stating themselves what they understand to be the Flat Earth assertions, and then dismantling them. More often than not, they either misunderstood or misrepresented the model.

You appear to be accusing me of a strawman here, which to the best of my knowledge I haven't engaged in. Care to fill me in on what about the North-azimuthal model I got wrong that makes 16-hour days in Australia possible?

I don't disagree with the premise that it could hypothetically be discounted. I disagree with the premise that it has been, or that your ilk have made any progress in that direction. At best, you've pointed out that there are some unknowns in the model.

Your demands are the equivalent of me demanding that you abandon General Relativity and look for a "less flawed model" because some anomalies have been found. It's a deplorable debating tactic, and the longer you insist on it, the more I'm thinking I should have carried on ignoring you as I had been before.

Ahh, here's where you're wrong. If you found some anomalies in General Relativity I would absolutely drop everything I was doing and look into it. And if I thought you were right I'd start documenting everything so I could brag that I was there when Nobel-Prize-Winner Pete Svarrior developed his ground-breaking theory that proved Einstein wrong. My main interest is learning about reality, and if you had some evidence that I had been misinformed, I'd totally change my position in a second.