[SpaceCadet]

A good number of flat earth thinkers call themselves Zetetists. They seek the truth. This is fine and good. This website is full of theories and models that have been put foward to discern the truth of the earth's shape.

So what then is being done to verify which of the various models and theories is the correct one? It is not enough to hypothesise a means to explain what is seen. Steps must be taken to verify the accuracy of said hypothesis as a function of truly seeking the truth.

Can any of the many original thinkers in this forum state the steps they are taking to verify their flat earth models?

[Bobby Shafto]

I would just like a practical demonstration of the horizon always appearing level with the observer's horizontal line of sight.

That's a basic, fundamental claim for a flat earth, but I've not seen it tested by flat earth advocates except without rigor and only at low elevations. Otherwise, I've only seen critiques of any attempt to show the claim is wrong.

Critiques are fine, and should be welcome. But the claim doesn't stand as true by default. You can't just shoot down counter proof. You must also forward supporting proof, and consider the same kind of critiques and scrutiny applied to the counter demos.

I'm not seeing that anywhere.

[SpaceCadet]

Round earthers (read that to mean scientists and philosophers from the time of the ancient Greeks) tried different experiments to prove or verify different aspects of scientific hypothesis before these became theories and or laws that mainstream science follows today. Since flat earth thinking assumes mainstream science lies, I don't want to suggest what experiments they should do. I just want zetetic thinkers to say what they are doing themselves to verify their hypothesis, to prove them.

[edby]

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

[Tontogary]

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

And while the theories might seem plausible (if flawed) taken individually, when put together they can in no way be taken seriously.

Take the earths magnetic field, which is mapped, and measured, and ask a FEer to explain how it can apply to a FE, and they will say that there is a South Pole all around=d the ice wall, as a way of explaining the field we know it there, but ask them about magnetic dip, and it is either never explained or fudged over, then ask them how it works with a bi pole model of the earth, and it really falls apart, and then how that all ties in with the aurora, and it becomes a complete shambles.

[hexagon]

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

And while the theories might seem plausible (if flawed) taken individually, when put together they can in no way be taken seriously.

Take the earths magnetic field, which is mapped, and measured, and ask a FEer to explain how it can apply to a FE, and they will say that there is a South Pole all around=d the ice wall, as a way of explaining the field we know it there, but ask them about magnetic dip, and it is either never explained or fudged over, then ask them how it works with a bi pole model of the earth, and it really falls apart, and then how that all ties in with the aurora, and it becomes a complete shambles.

Such a model is not possible. In that case the density of magnetic field lines would be much higher in the north compared to the south which means a strong gradient in magnetic field strength going from the north to the south. Its basically the same problem as with the increasing distances in east-west direction if you go south on the mono-polar flat earth.

[Tontogary]

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

And while the theories might seem plausible (if flawed) taken individually, when put together they can in no way be taken seriously.

Take the earths magnetic field, which is mapped, and measured, and ask a FEer to explain how it can apply to a FE, and they will say that there is a South Pole all around=d the ice wall, as a way of explaining the field we know it there, but ask them about magnetic dip, and it is either never explained or fudged over, then ask them how it works with a bi pole model of the earth, and it really falls apart, and then how that all ties in with the aurora, and it becomes a complete shambles.

Such a model is not possible. In that case the density of magnetic field lines would be much higher in the north compared to the south which means a strong gradient in magnetic field strength going from the north to the south. Its basically the same problem as with the increasing distances in east-west direction if you go south on the mono-polar flat earth.

I know, which is why i keep on asking FEers to explain how on a flat earth the earths magnetic field works, because it cannot, and will never agree with what is measured and observed.

[iamcpc]

A good number of flat earth thinkers call themselves Zetetists. They seek the truth. This is fine and good. This website is full of theories and models that have been put foward to discern the truth of the earth's shape.

So what then is being done to verify which of the various models and theories is the correct one? It is not enough to hypothesise a means to explain what is seen. Steps must be taken to verify the accuracy of said hypothesis as a function of truly seeking the truth.

Can any of the many original thinkers in this forum state the steps they are taking to verify their flat earth models?

The problem with this is that testing these things would be a massive research project. The globe earth brainwashing is so powerful no university would fund someone traveling all over the world taking flat earth measurements or coming up with some groundbreaking flat earth experiment to prove there is a dome or ice wall or disprove gravity.

Anyone with the money to fund such projects probably would rather spend the 100-200k on something like a house.

[AATW]

A good number of flat earth thinkers call themselves Zetetists. They seek the truth. This is fine and good. This website is full of theories and models that have been put foward to discern the truth of the earth's shape.

So what then is being done to verify which of the various models and theories is the correct one? It is not enough to hypothesise a means to explain what is seen. Steps must be taken to verify the accuracy of said hypothesis as a function of truly seeking the truth.

Can any of the many original thinkers in this forum state the steps they are taking to verify their flat earth models?

The problem with this is that testing these things would be a massive research project. The globe earth brainwashing is so powerful no university would fund someone traveling all over the world taking flat earth measurements or coming up with some groundbreaking flat earth experiment to prove there is a dome or ice wall or disprove gravity.

Anyone with the money to fund such projects probably would rather spend the 100-200k on something like a house.

There are experiments you can be doing for pretty much nothing which would test parts of their model. Witness Bobby's experiments about horizon dip. I note there has been no FE response to his latest photos. If anyone disputes them and still believes that horizon remains at eye level they could do their own experiments, it could cost very little, apart from time. There is no reason for FE people not to be doing this sort of thing.

[Tumeni]

The problem with this is that testing these things would be a massive research project. The globe earth brainwashing is so powerful no university would fund someone traveling all over the world taking flat earth measurements or coming up with some groundbreaking flat earth experiment to prove there is a dome or ice wall or disprove gravity.

The problem is that nobody sees any need to do this. It's not 'brainwashing', it's a cast-iron fact that humankind has been sending orbital craft into space for over 70 years. Some of this are employed to photograph the globe for weather or Earth observation purposes.

Nobody with any say in the field would even consider doing the above.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's not 'brainwashing', it's a cast-iron fact that humankind has been sending orbital craft into space for over 70 years.

Goebbels would have a thing or two to say about this. Successful brainwashing becomes "not brainwashing" extremely easily.

[SpaceCadet]

It's not 'brainwashing', it's a cast-iron fact that humankind has been sending orbital craft into space for over 70 years.

Goebbels would have a thing or two to say about this. Successful brainwashing becomes "not brainwashing" extremely easily.

Hello Pete. Before we derail this into the various brainwashings and all, I'd like to know what you have done to verify that the model of the flat earth you subscribe to is valid.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'd like to know what you have done to verify that the model of the flat earth you subscribe to is valid.

I privately reproduced a number of Flat Earth experiments to my own satisfaction. No, I will not be showing them to you.

[AATW]

Can you at least tell us what those experiments are?
You said something about sinking ship and said you have published those results on the other place.
I'll believe you but couldn't find them.
You say "a number", so what others have you done?

[Round Eyes]

I'd like to know what you have done to verify that the model of the flat earth you subscribe to is valid.

I privately reproduced a number of Flat Earth experiments to my own satisfaction. No, I will not be showing them to you.

not sure how that is a beneficial post?  i only think its fair in the spirit of debate that you would provide that information.  Round Earthers on here get questioned all the time to provide backup and i have seen them take a substantial amount of time creating diagrams, etc to demonstrate their point.  If a RE had the same response i dont think that would be acceptable.   

[I am Seeker of Truth]

I'd like to know what you have done to verify that the model of the flat earth you subscribe to is valid.

I privately reproduced a number of Flat Earth experiments to my own satisfaction. No, I will not be showing them to you.

Why  not? If you have experimental proof that the earth is flat, why would you not share it?

[Pete Svarrior]

not sure how that is a beneficial post?

That's because our priorities differ. You're thinking of this as a battle. You act as if I was here to prove something to someone.

I don't say things because I think they benefit me, or take away from others. I say things which I consider to be true.

As an empiricist I test things on a daily basis.  I do it for myself, and not for you. As such, I don't put much time into writing them up to any publishable standard. My recommendation has always been the same: don't sit around waiting for someone else to convince you. Take a look yourself.

This obsession with what's "beneficial" ultimately does nothing but hurt discourse.

[AATW]

not sure how that is a beneficial post?

That's because our priorities differ. You're thinking of this as a battle. You act as if I was here to prove something to someone.

I don't say things because I think they benefit me, or take away from others. I say things which I consider to be true.

As an empiricist I test things on a daily basis.  I do it for myself, and not for you. As such, I don't put much time into writing them up to any publishable standard. My recommendation has always been the same: don't sit around waiting for someone else to convince you. Take a look yourself.

This obsession with what's "beneficial" ultimately does nothing but hurt discourse.

I don't know about a battle but you guys are making a pretty big claim.
You're claiming that thousands of years of science is wrong, that there's a massive worldwide conspiracy to fake space travel involving thousands of people who claim to either have been to space or must be working behind the scenes on faking pictures and video from space.
There's a bunch of other implications but let's just go with that for now.

I'm massively confused about what you guys are trying to achieve. You think you've uncovered something as big as I state above and you don't want to tell anyone? Or rather, you do, hence this place and your other publicity, but you don't want to tell anyone how you arrived at that conclusion? Fine to perform tests for your own edification/satisfaction, but even if you don't want to publish your results you could tell us what tests you've done so others can repeat them.