Scientific Predictions

It seems to me that historically since Copernicus, the general consensus of science has pointed in the dircetion of a RE model, and it's been left up to the FE'rs to explain an alternative to the evidence that supports a RE model. But I was just wondering if there is, or ever has been, empirical/experimental evidence that supports a FE model that cannot/has not been explained by a RE model? Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

It seems to me that historically since Copernicus, the general consensus of science has pointed in the dircetion of a RE model, and it's been left up to the FE'rs to explain an alternative to the evidence that supports a RE model. But I was just wondering if there is, or ever has been, empirical/experimental evidence that supports a FE model that cannot/has not been explained by a RE model? Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

AFAIK there has been no peer-reviewed scientific study that supported FE in over a hundred years.

The last notorious attempt was Lady Blount's photograph on the Old Bedford River. She reports that she has photographic evidence that showed not only the distant object to the waterline, but also its reflection in the river in front of it. Oddly enough, she never produced the photograph into record.

Of course, anyone who has successfully completed high school physics knows that that's impossible.

Of course, anyone who has successfully completed high school physics knows that that's impossible.

Wouldn't someone who has successfully completed high school physics also know that nothing is impossible, and that such thinking is exactly what stands in the way of scientific progress?

Wouldn't someone who has successfully completed high school physics also know that nothing is impossible, and that such thinking is exactly what stands in the way of scientific progress?

I think he meant it as highly improbable. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.

Quote from: CommonCents on August 16, 2007, 02:41:26 PM

Wouldn't someone who has successfully completed high school physics also know that nothing is impossible, and that such thinking is exactly what stands in the way of scientific progress?

I think he meant it as highly improbable. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.

I figured that's what he meant, but he likes changing topic so much, I thought I'd try it on him.  My master plan has been ruined!

[Are there] scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

No there are not, and that is the single most powerful piece of evidence against FE.

FE'ers spend all there time trying to show why RE is wrong, or trying to find a mechanism whereby a given observation can be explained in a flat earth model, but they never provide a predictive mathematical model whereby things like the future position of the planets may be predicted.

If that could be done, and the model worked more accurately then RE* then scientists would seriously consider it as a scientific idea.  But not until then.

I don't think this is an unreasonable request; after all, it is the exact same thing that RE'ers in antiquity and Heliocentrists in the late middle ages had to go through to convince others that their models were valid.

*Not likely, since RE makes confirmed predictions that are more accurate then the current limits of our measurements

It seems to me that historically since Copernicus, the general consensus of science has pointed in the dircetion of a RE model, and it's been left up to the FE'rs to explain an alternative to the evidence that supports a RE model. But I was just wondering if there is, or ever has been, empirical/experimental evidence that supports a FE model that cannot/has not been explained by a RE model? Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

I have asked for this before.  You won't find any. 

Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

Read Earth Not a Globe. Read Zetetic Cosmogony. There are plenty of predictions that FE makes and proves to be more accurate with than RE.

Quote

Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

Read Earth Not a Globe. 

lol

You cannot use any of his equations to predict anything. 

Read Earth Not a Globe. Read Zetetic Cosmogony. There are plenty of predictions that FE makes and proves to be more accurate with.

I have not found a single prediction in that book that RE cannot make with equivalent or greater accuracy.  Care to provide one?

not to mention the precise mathematical observations used are along the lines of "i looked over and I could see something, so I proved the earth is flat" and "I asked a guy how long it took to go from point A to point B and it shouldnt have taken that long so therefore the earth is flat" very percise math indeed

Quote

Or scientific predictions that a FE model has made that have been more accurate than the RE model?

Read Earth Not a Globe. Read Zetetic Cosmogony. There are plenty of predictions that FE makes and proves to be more accurate with than RE.

Isn't that your job? Has there been a huge power shift, while I was away? You were always the one to copy and paste fun but totally irrelevant paragraphs from Earth:Not A Globe. Whose job is that now?