FE'ers need to prove RE theory wrong

The RE model is the most widely accepted in the world. It has stood unchallenged for so long that it is now generally accepted as fact.

Thus, the burden of proof lies on the FE'ers to prove RE theory wrong and furthermore that FE theory is correct.

However, the problem is that I have not seen any such activity whatsoever on these forums. All that I have seen is elaborate explanations for why the various aspects of the RE model can be made to work with the FE model. In fact, nearly every single aspect of FE theory seems to stem directly as a counter-point to some aspect of RE theory. In order to prove your theory you need to find two things:

1. Indisputable facts that absolutely do not work with the RE model
2. Facts completely independent of either model that would only work with the FE model

Let me explain them
1. Proving that certain things might not work with RE or that certain things aren't necessarily true with RE is not sufficient. They must be absolutely incompatible with a round Earth
2. This is incorrect: "Assume the Earth is flat. Then A is true because of B, C because of D, etc." What you must do is this: "Assume that we know nothing about the shape of the Earth. I know that X is definitely true. By experimentation and observation, X can only be true if the Earth is flat."

I know that many of you FE'ers believe beyond a doubt that the Earth is truly flat. That's the best way to get people to not take you seriously. If you instead operate under the assumption that the FE model have very compelling evidence, that might convince people to listen to you.

Just follow standard scientific process. I only say it every 2 or 3 seconds!

To the OP:

Majoritarian acceptance of a particular belief gives it no more inherant validity than any other. 100% of the world population could believe in the existence leprachauns, but that alone would not make them any more real.

FE'ers don't NEED to prove RE theory wrong, and vice versa. There is only one truth about the shape of the Earth, and whatever that is, we should endeavour to find it. This is the primary principle of zetetic astronomy and zetetic science in general. By setting out to prove that the Earth is flat, or by setting out to prove that it is round, we set ourselves up to be partially tricked by our own preconceptions - what we EXPECT the answer to be, rather than what it actually is (one of the central failings in modern scientific method).

1. Indisputable facts that absolutely do not work with the RE model

The problem with this approach is that the Round Earth model is designed from the start to cover every conceivable line of inquiry. The few methods of positively debunking RET are currently out of reach (visiting and documenting the ice wall unhindered, going into space properly (on the UA)). However, the fact that the angles covered by RE are also covered by FE should warrant reconsideration of impartiality on the part of those convinced of the Earth's roundness, thus allowing such experimentation to take place.

1. Proving that certain things might not work with RE or that certain things aren't necessarily true with RE is not sufficient. They must be absolutely incompatible with a round Earth

Why, when as you well know, RE mythology covers essentially all the angles, explaining with alternative "science" how the trappings of the universe comply with RET? If both theories have essentially complete, watertight models, why should Flat Earthers have to find a complete, glaring flaw in RET when Round Earthers cannot do the same for FET?

If all things really are equal then, Occam's razor slices off the nasty work-arounds of FE theory and leaves round earth as our best bet.

If all things really are equal then, Occam's razor slices off the nasty work-arounds of FE theory and leaves round earth as our best bet.

I disagree. Flat Earth Theory only seems like a load of "nasty work-arounds" because it isn't the accepted theory. Imagine approaching Round Earth Theory from a FE perspective. How does inventing a magical, invisible force to explain away the fairly simple principle of Universal Acceleration not count as a nasty work-around?

I was thinking more of the spotlight sun, the giant conspiracy etc. An unexplained force isn't uncommon in science, but a huge coverup is...I think.

An unexplained force isn't uncommon in science, but a huge coverup is...I think.

Was Watergate somehow unscientific?

RE theory would hardly remain "untouched" by Occam's Razor.

The problem with this approach is that the Round Earth model is designed from the start to cover every conceivable line of inquiry.

Actually, that is almost definitely incorrect. By the admission of FE'ers, many people thousands of years ago believed that the Earth was round - and this was long before we were the internationally connected, scientifically advanced culture that we are today. The RE model was not designed to accommodate every conceivable line of inquiry, it originated off of very simply observations (plotting start movements, watching the horizon, etc) and later on it turned out to to fit very nicely with completely new discoveries.

FE theory, on the other hand, was made to cover most lines of inquiry since most of its principles clearly exist only as counterpoints to RE theory - not as independent discoveries.

You do make a good point though, you shouldn't set out to prove the Earth flat or prove it round, you should assume nothing and set out to discover the true shape of the Earth. Unfortunately, a majority of the FE'ers do not follow this procedure and instead assume that the Earth is flat and then go on explaining how everything works with their model.

why should Flat Earthers have to find a complete, glaring flaw in RET when Round Earthers cannot do the same for FET?

Don't for a second pretend like that is the truth. I'm sure that every single RE'er on these forums can name several occasions where we have pointed out glaring flaws in FET. And I'm sure that every single FE'er on these forums can name hundreds of reasons why they think those aren't actually glaring flaws.

And for clarity, my original post was an and/or. Proving either of statement 1 or 2 would be entirely sufficient.

Don't for a second pretend like that is the truth. I'm sure that every single RE'er on these forums can name several occasions where we have pointed out glaring flaws in FET. And I'm sure that every single FE'er on these forums can name hundreds of reasons why they think those aren't actually glaring flaws.

The only points which don't get explicitly agreed upon or resolved are the ones argued ad infinitum with each side nitpicking further and further until the original issue is completely lost.

Show me one example of a phenomenom which has yet to be adequately explained by an FE model.

Gladly:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12411.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12399.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12382.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11955.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11998.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12004.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12373.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11708.0

Please post your responses in the corresponding threads rather than here, so that we don't get off topic.

Please post your responses in the corresponding threads rather than here, so that we don't get off topic.

Ok, but here's a brief status report:

1: The discussion is still underway, but besides that I don't see what the problem is. I've already presented a completely viable answer.
2: Position posted.
3: Position posted.
4: Position posted - I completely fail to see what the issue is here. The flaw can't be that glaring if nobody actually understands what you're getting at.
5: Addressed.
6: Already addressed in "flat earth and flat planets"
7: Addressed in other threads, follow the links.
8: That isn't even a scientific concern, it's just an ad hominem attack.

My point here is that you don't have a case for there being "glaring flaws" in FET. In these instances one of three things has occured:
the topic has been exhaustively covered in previous threads or literature (which I've tried to point you to),
the topic is still being discussed by both sides (i.e. no conclusion has been reached), in which case I've thrown in a cursory contribution
OR
the topic is just a vague jab at Flat Earthers (topic .

So a glaring flaw then, by your definition, is either:
a well documented and explained issue which you happen to disagree with pretty much out of faith,
a topic still being discussed, scrutinized or explained,
or "THE FACT THAT FLAT EARTH IS STUPID AND FLAT EARTHERS ARE IDIOTS AND WRONG BLAH BLAH"?

I disagree. Flat Earth Theory only seems like a load of "nasty work-arounds" because it isn't the accepted theory. Imagine approaching Round Earth Theory from a FE perspective. How does inventing a magical, invisible force to explain away the fairly simple principle of Universal Acceleration not count as a nasty work-around?

I'm assuming the magical, invisible force in question is the attraction of masses.  You can perform an experiment in your own home to show that masses do, indeed, attract.  I have shown the experiment to TheEngineer, he said the timing is wrong on it but the experiment should still hold true if you wait long enough.  He told me that this mystery force's existence isn't in question, but whether or not it is universal.

*note* TheEng, I do not wish to misrepresent you so if what I said is wrong please let me know.

This whole thread is completely erroneous from the topic. Nobody needs to prove the other wrong. They both need to present evidence and THEN we figure out which one is right. Both have presented evidence, and thus we must figure out which one is right through proper debate and reference to proof which contradicts other proof.
This, my friend, is how we conduct a debate scientifically. No "Why should I believe this?!" and no "Ur theerie suks so u have to giv us proof furst!"

~D-Draw