Give me one decent reason for believing the Earth is whirling globe

.. and I will seriously consider challenging my belief system.

That statement applies to both sides of the rainbow.

I'll love you forever if you do  

When all else fails Tom...play the false doubt card.

GTFO.

That statement applies to both sides of the rainbow.

Let us start afresh, believing neither flat or round, and look outside our windows for a moment.

I happen to see a perfectly flat horizon. Therefore, I can say for certain, that the earth is flat by pretense.

Why then should I believe in a Round Earth if my own senses tells me it is flat?

Quote

That statement applies to both sides of the rainbow.

Let us start afresh, believing neither flat or round, and look outside our windows for a moment.

I happen to see a flat horizon. Therefore, the earth is flat by pretense.

Why should I believe in a Round Earth if my own eyes tells me it is flat?

Astronomy. 

Astronomy.

What about those meaningless lights in the night sky implies a Round Earth?

You ignored my reason 

There is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe.  You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.  
You claim all the NASA pictures are fake and that the only reason they do that is for money.  Well its 2007.  How long do you think they can keep fooling people?  Space is right there.  What do you think will happen when people find out its "flat"?  I don't think you realize how big of a deal it would be.   But the fact is we don't have to worry about it.  The pictures I posted on Jupiter and its moons are real.

Quote

That statement applies to both sides of the rainbow.

Let us start afresh, believing neither flat or round, and look outside our windows for a moment.

I happen to see a perfectly flat horizon. Therefore, I can say for certain, that the earth is flat by pretense.

Why should I believe in a Round Earth if my own eyes tells me it is flat?

I couldn't care less what you believe or claim to believe. That's not my problem. I will not, however, permit you to get by with posting the same explanations that have been overturned time after time. Keeping you straight is the reason why I am still here.

Well, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.

You're such a clown, Tom.

There is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe. You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.

Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Well, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.

By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.

The term Zetetic is actually derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.

Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.

Science changes.  There have been many AU but none of them have been 3,000 miles.  Well besides some dude who name started with an R. 

Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Of course it changes. It's called progress.

By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.

By looking out your window, you can see hills, depressions, mountains, valleys, plains, all of which are inconclusive as to the shape of the earth.

The term Zetetic is actually derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.

Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.

And a conspiracy is in no way zetetic.

Try again.

Of course it changes. It's called progress.

Direct contradiction is not progress. It's contradiction. Nothing more.

Even the shape of the earth has changed throughout the ages. First it was a sphere, then it was pear shaped, and just recently it was described as a sphere with a flattened top and bottom. Unable to make up their mind to a preferred design, these shapes stemmed from the presumptive ideas and hypothesis of belligerent dreamers of the day.

The Newtonian and all other "systems" and "views" have the same general character and flaws as the hypothesis of the terrestrial motion framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved and unproven; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is forever denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change.

Round Earthers are running around in the dark, seeking halfway decent explanations to supplement their blemished theories and suppositions of the universe. The earth became tilted on its axis to explain daylight hours. The earth was given an elliptical orbit to explain seasonal discrepancies. All unproven conjectures stemming from a vast desire to keep a prehistoric unproven model coherent.

Until the practice of theorizing is universally relinquished, science will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, ill-disposed to the highest aspirations of humanity.

Quote

Of course it changes. It's called progress.

Direct contradiction is not progress. It's contradiction. Nothing more.

Even the shape of the earth has changed throughout the ages. First it was a sphere, then it was pear shaped, and just recently it was described a sphere with a flattened top and bottom. Each of these shapes stemmed from nothing more than ideas and hypothesis.

The Newtonian and all other "systems" and "views" have the same general character and flaws as the hypothesis of the terrestrial motion framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved and unproven; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is forever denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change.

Until the practice of theorizing is universally relinquished, science will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, ill-disposed to the highest aspirations of humanity.

No it really is progress, usually caused by advancements in technology.
What is wrong with observing something, creating a theory, and then trying to prove that theory through experiment?  What should scientists do instead?

BTW I never heard that people thought the earth was in the shape of a pear.  I did hear how Newton himself though the earth wasn't a perfect sphere.   

Quote

Of course it changes. It's called progress.

Direct contradiction is not progress. It's contradiction. Nothing more.

So according to you the FE model is a complete waste of time.

Even the shape of the earth has changed throughout the ages. First it was a sphere, then it was pear shaped, and just recently it was described as a sphere with a flattened top and bottom. Each of these shapes stemmed from nothing more than ideas and hypothesis.

And FE theory is nothing more than extreme example of this. Feel the irony.

The Newtonian and all other "systems" and "views" have the same general character and flaws as the hypothesis of the terrestrial motion framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved and unproven; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is forever denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change.

It's proof enough that the system explains current observations. When the system no longer fits, it's either modified or discarded and replaced with one that fits both old and new data. That applies to all science - FE and RE, theoretical and zetetical.

Round Earthers are running around in the dark, seeking halfway decent explanations to supplement their blemished theories and suppositions of the universe. The earth became tilted on its axis to explain daylight hours. The earth was given an elliptical orbit to explain seasonal discrepancies. All unproven conjecture stemming from a vast desire to keep prehistoric unproven models coherent.

Judging by how "obsolete" the FAQ his become even since I joined, the exact same process happens on these forums.

Until the practice of theorizing is universally relinquished, science will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, ill-disposed to the highest aspirations of humanity.

I don't believe you or any FE believer are qualified to speak for the bulk of mankind.

Semantics, Tom. Your move.

What is wrong with observing something, creating a theory, and then trying to prove that theory through experiment?  What should scientists do instead?

That's the problem right there. These so called scientists don't experiment.

And FE theory is nothing more than extreme example of this. Feel the irony.

There is no irony. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham started with a simple question: "What shape is the shape of the earth?"  Rowbotham's next step was to conduct a number of experiments without expectation or presumption. It is commendable that Rowbotham was able to push the brainwashing out of his mind for a moment and conduct an impartial and honest query into the true shape of the earth.

Dr. Rowbotham found, through his various trials and tabulations, that the surface of the earth is completely and absolutely flat. It's all right there in Earth Not a Globe, peer reviewed time and time again. After Rowbotham's death further experimental evidence was conducted by Lady Blount, Samuel Shenton, Charles K. Johnson, Leo Ferrari, and many others.
 
Did Copernicus ever conduct tests and trials before coming to his conclusion? No.

Did Newton ever conduct tests and trials with before coming to his conclusion? No.

Has any other self declared "scientist" ever conducted an impartial query into the shape of the earth? No.

I challenge you to find a single experimental inquiry into the shape of the earth conducted at any point throughout the annals of time which suggests that the earth is a globe. Just one.

The modern Round Earth is merely an idea which is passed down from generation to generation - a myth - an old wives tale which bows to ancient presumptions and idealisms without a shred of evidence to back up the math. A bunch of hocus pocus designed to cater to the greedy and power hungry.

There is no irony. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham started with a simple question: "What shape is the shape of the earth?"  Rowbotham's next step was to conduct a number of experiments without expectation or presumption. It is commendable that Rowbotham was able to push the brainwashing out of his mind for a moment and conduct an impartial and honest query into the true shape of the Earth. Dr. Rowbotham found, through his various trials and tabulations, that the surface of the earth was completely and absolutely flat. It's all right there in Earth Not a Globe, peer reviewed time and time again.

Peer reviewed? You mean peer disputed. He pulls a few experiments and obtains resultes that few have been able to repeat. He then spends the entire second half of his book inventing phenomenon to fill in the gaps. This is not impartial zetetic science, this is the theoretic science you dismiss as faulty.
 

Did Copernicus ever conduct tests and trials before coming to his conclusion? No.

Did Newton ever conduct tests and trials with before coming to his conclusion? No.

So what tests and trials did Rowbotham do to verify the cause of eclipses, the phases of the moon, the cause of tides, the cause of seasons, the ice wall, what's beyond the ice wall, his alternative to gravity, et al.?

Has any other self declared "scientist" ever conducted an impartial query into the shape of the earth? No.

As I just stated, Rowbotham abandoned any semblance of impartiality halfway through the book.

I challenge you to find a single experimental inquiry into the shape of the earth conducted at any point throughout the annals of time. Just one.

I challenge you to do the same, since Rowbotham's doesn't count.

The modern Round Earth is merely an idea which is passed down from generation to generation - a myth - an old wives tale which bows to ancient presumptions and idealisms without a shred of evidence to back up the math. A bunch of hocus pocus designed to cater to the greedy and power hungry.

So there is evidence for FE's shadow object, conspiracy, UA, etc. Please, enlighten me.

As usual you ignore the majority of my arguments and attempt to trump a single sentence of mine. You'll have to try harder if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Quote

What is wrong with observing something, creating a theory, and then trying to prove that theory through experiment?  What should scientists do instead?

That's the problem right there. These so called scientists don't experiment.

Quote

And FE theory is nothing more than extreme example of this. Feel the irony.

There is no irony. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham started with a simple question: "What shape is the shape of the earth?"  Rowbotham's next step was to conduct a number of experiments without expectation or presumption. It is commendable that Rowbotham was able to push the brainwashing out of his mind for a moment and conduct an impartial and honest query into the true shape of the earth.

Dr. Rowbotham found, through his various trials and tabulations, that the surface of the earth is completely and absolutely flat. It's all right there in Earth Not a Globe, peer reviewed time and time again. After Rowbotham's death further experimental evidence was conducted by Lady Blount, Samuel Shenton, Charles K. Johnson, Leo Ferrari, and many others.
 
Did Copernicus ever conduct tests and trials before coming to his conclusion? No.

Did Newton ever conduct tests and trials with before coming to his conclusion? No.

Has any other self declared "scientist" ever conducted an impartial query into the shape of the earth? No.

I challenge you to find a single experimental inquiry into the shape of the earth conducted at any point throughout the annals of time which suggests that the earth is a globe. Just one.

The modern Round Earth is merely an idea which is passed down from generation to generation - a myth - an old wives tale which bows to ancient presumptions and idealisms without a shred of evidence to back up the math. A bunch of hocus pocus designed to cater to the greedy and power hungry.

The well experiment was an experiment to prove the earth was round.  Fe'ers created a magical force to steal this experiment from us.  There is no force that would cause the sun to change its radius(disbelieve the pendulum) or changed its distance from a spot(believe the pendulum.) Not to mention the pendulum experiment itself.  According to you even if we did an experiment and it showed the results we wanted you would claim its broken.  So like agent asked, wheres your experiment that shows the sun changes its radius to make the seasons?   

The well experiment was an experiment to prove the earth was round.  Fe'ers created a magical force to steal this experiment from us.  There is no force that would cause the sun to change its radius(disbelieve the pendulum) or changed its distance from a spot(believe the pendulum.) Not to mention the pendulum experiment itself.  According to you even if we did an experiment and it showed the results we wanted you would claim its broken.  So like agent asked, wheres your experiment that shows the sun changes its radius to make the seasons?

The variations of the pendulum are caused entirely by the contracting and expanding of its twine due to temperature variations. See Chapter 14, Section 8. Rowbotham provides additional insight in Chapter 14, Section 21.

Experimental evidence for the changing of the sun's radius is right there in its Analemma. It is immediately obvious to any clear-minded person. The sun recedes South in the winter and then North in the summer. When the sun is in its winter annulus it creates a large retrograde loop. When the sun is in its summer annulus it creates a smaller prograde loop. This has been tested time and time again. The Analemma can only be explained by a modification of its radius.

If you'd like experimental evidence for UA, simply drop a pen and observe its acceleration.

So what tests and trials did Rowbotham do to verify the cause of eclipses, the phases of the moon, the cause of tides, the cause of seasons, the ice wall, what's beyond the ice wall, his alternative to gravity, et al.?

Dr. Rowbotham was extremely meticulous in his work. After disproving the earth as a globe through experimental evidence he goes on to study the effects and cause of phenomena, giving explanations in clear and quantitative terms. Rowbotham utilized his professional wealth to explore the world, collecting mounds of evidence and personal observations attesting to the flatness of the earth. As a professional astronomer Rowbotham was especially astute at his work. He toured Europe under the pseudonym of 'Parallax', giving lectures at many prominent universities. Wherever he went and whomever he spoke with - educated members of society would be instantly swayed by his superior knowledge and insights to the workings of the world.

Here is a review after a lecture at Greenwich University:

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, riveting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for anyone to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic science. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

Rowbotham goes on to give a lecture at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute:

"PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.--On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute. The reasoning of 'Parallax,' which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry--stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while 'Parallax,' remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which 'Parallax' said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanor, respectful bearing, and candour of 'Parallax' bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character."

"The lectures will be repeated next week, and as public discussion is invited at the end of each lecture, we hope it will be conducted temperately and with proper spirit. Meanwhile we claim, in justice to 'Parallax,' that no unjust erroneous prejudicial notions be formed of him without a hearing."--Devonport Independent, October 15th, 1864.

Locking...unlocking...make your mind up Tommy boy

Seems weird that "Parallax" would have been making such waves in the academic community, yet there has still never been a respected scientist who attested to the flatness of the earth.

The variations of the pendulum are caused entirely by the contracting and expanding of its twine due to temperature variations. See Chapter 14, Section 8. Rowbotham provides additional insight in Chapter 14, Section 21.

Never mind the pendulums that are hung with something other than twine

Experimental evidence for the changing of the sun's radius is right there in its Analemma. It is immediately obvious to any clear-minded person. The sun recedes South in the winter and then North in the summer. When the sun is in its winter annulus it creates a large retrograde loop. When the sun is in its summer annulus it creates a smaller prograde loop. This has been tested time and time again. The Analemma can only be explained by a modification of its radius.

What you just described is an observation which is also covered in RE theory. It is not experimental evidence of the FE system, unless you can show us the experiment(s) done.

If you'd like experimental evidence for UA, simply drop a pen and observe its acceleration.

Where is the experimental evidence that shows this to be the UA instead of RE gravitation-by-mass?

Quote

So what tests and trials did Rowbotham do to verify the cause of eclipses, the phases of the moon, the cause of tides, the cause of seasons, the ice wall, what's beyond the ice wall, his alternative to gravity, et al.?

Dr. Rowbotham was extremely meticulous in his work. After disproving the earth as a globe through experimental evidence he goes on to study the effects and cause of phenomena, giving explanations in clear and quantitative terms. Rowbotham utilized his professional wealth to explore the world, collecting mounds of evidence and personal observations attesting to the flatness of the earth. As a professional astronomer Rowbotham was especially astute at his work. He toured Europe under the pseudonym of 'Parallax', giving lectures at many prominent universities. Wherever he went and whomever he spoke with - educated members of society would be instantly swayed by his superior knowledge and insights to the workings of the world.

Congratulations for rambling for a full paragraph without answering my question.

Here is a review after a lecture at Greenwich University:

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, riveting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for anyone to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic science. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

Rowbotham goes on to give a lecture at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute:

"PARALLAX AT DEVONPORT.--On Wednesday evening last the gentleman adopting this cognomen, and who has been creating a great deal of interest in this locality during the last few weeks, commenced a series of lectures at the Devonport Mechanics' Institute. The reasoning of 'Parallax,' which he has termed Zetetic, is so astounding and diametrically opposed to the great Newtonian theory which has obtained in the world for hundreds of years, that he has often been ridiculed as a crude experimentalist, abused as a false teacher, and even accused of mendacity. He has borne these harsh expressions and ungentlemanly imputations calmly and patiently; and it is but just to say that, in his lectures, he has always courted the fullest inquiry--stating that his only object is the elucidation of truth, no matter what it may be or what it may lead to; and that in his discussions he is courteous in hearing and candid in expression. That he is a clever man, and that he has studied his subject deeply, there can be no possible doubt; and it is certainly the case, whether he is right or wrong, that his arguments are exceedingly plausible, and that he has much the better of his opponents in discussion. Unfortunately those who have entered into discussion with him have in nine cases out of ten become excited and lost their command, while 'Parallax,' remaining cool and calculating, has thus, apart from his demonstrations, been enabled to gain an advantage over them in reasoning. On this occasion the discussion became very warm, and ungracious imputations were made, which 'Parallax' said resulted from a fear to face the consequences resulting from new and true ideas. The demeanor, respectful bearing, and candour of 'Parallax' bear out his assertions that his object is the elucidation of truth; and he appeals to his audience to disprove his statements, while he undertakes to prove them to be true. He is fair in every way, and it is unjust, nay, it is something worse, to treat with disrespect a lecturer of this character."

"The lectures will be repeated next week, and as public discussion is invited at the end of each lecture, we hope it will be conducted temperately and with proper spirit. Meanwhile we claim, in justice to 'Parallax,' that no unjust erroneous prejudicial notions be formed of him without a hearing."--Devonport Independent, October 15th, 1864.

And these lectures and reviews are irrelevant to what I'm asking.

Tom, I'm insulted. You're not even putting any effort into this. This is debate, Bishop. Keep trying.

Seems weird that "Parallax" would have been making such waves in the academic community, yet there has still never been a respected scientist who attested to the flatness of the earth.

For the same reason scientists don't run around proclaiming the non-existence of God. As William Carpenter attests, holding such ideas keeps one back in the world.

Never mind the pendulums that are hung with something other than twine

Twine - string - nylon; it all expands and contracts due to temperature differences.

What you just described is an observation which is also covered in RE theory. It is not experimental evidence of the FE system, unless you can show us the experiment(s) done.

Observations are valid. We simply need to look up into the skies and observe the sun moving South in its winter annulus and then North in its summer annulus. That's all the evidence we require.

Where is the experimental evidence that shows this to be the UA instead of RE gravitation-by-mass?

Why should I disprove a phenomenon that does not exist? When I release a pen from my hand I see acceleration - the earth catches up to the pen. Unless you can show me what mysterious property of innert matter bends space-time, I am more inclined to believe that the "gravity" we experience is nothing more than a purely mechanical side-effect of acceleration.

You're the one who wants to create mysterious forces, Agent. We can observe the net affect of UA directly by looking into the night skies and observing the cosmos slowly accelerating away from itself. Why should I believe in a magical attraction between objects?

And these lectures and reviews are irrelevant to what I'm asking.

You are asking for explanations when you can provide none of your own. You have not provided a decent reason for believing in a Round Earth. No evidence whatsoever is given.

Quote

Seems weird that "Parallax" would have been making such waves in the academic community, yet there has still never been a respected scientist who attested to the flatness of the earth.

For the same reason scientists don't run around proclaiming the non-existence of God. As William Carpenter attests, holding such ideas keeps one back in the world.

Two points about this.

1) You can't have it both ways.  One would assume you're posting this as a way to legitimize Rowbotham.  One of the articles seemed to be making the claim that his theories were blowing the academic institution away.  Either he was or he wasn't, but the fact that no contemporary scientists were willing to back him up seriously points to him being considered a quack at the time.  Clearly he wasn't being taken seriously.

2) Are you really implying that not a single reputable scientist has expressed disbelief in God?    You're so funny, Tom!

Tom confuses me

Why should I believe in a magical attraction between objects?

Because otherwise, despite the acceleration, wouldn't the pen be forced to move away from the earth if it was expanding so quickly?

Gravitation-by-mass is the only reason.

You are asking for explanations when you can provide none of your own. You have not provided a decent reason for believing in a Round Earth. No evidence whatsoever is given.

No, plenty of evidence is given- you RE'ers just constantly ignore it. Constantly.

Let us start afresh, believing neither flat or round, and look outside our windows for a moment.

I happen to see a perfectly flat horizon. Therefore, I can say for certain, that the earth is flat by pretense.

Why should I believe in a Round Earth if my own senses tells me it is flat?

But you are not actually starting afresh because your brain, through your visional input, is making certain assumptions here.  You're assuming the earth is flat and therefore you see a line, the so-called horizon. You know already from experience that the line is an illusion because as you move towards it, it always recedes. Try assuming , just for the sake of experiment, that there actually is no line.  Assume that what you are seeing is the gradual dropping off of a curving earth.  Now go back outside and see if somehow your mind is processing your vision any differently.