Flat Earth not a theory

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH). The main issue addressed by the FEH is the shape of the Earth on a large scale, outside of the easily observable human sight range. This idea has been supported by many other scientific ideas including: UA, Bendy Light, Sky Mirror, etc. This idea also requires the existence of the Conspiracy, a large organized attempt to hide the true shape of the Earth.

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed and have not been reproduced by the modern FES (although Daniel attempted the BLE but in my opinion made a math error). Both of tests only look for local flatness, and have nothing to do with the real point of the FEH, the general shape of the Earth at large.

Until a testable model of the location of various major cities around the world is developed, I propose that idea of a Flat Earth remains a hypothesis. In this age with reliable wind speed measurements and relatively cheap access to commercial aviation, the ability of the FES to gather evidence has never been greater.

I second the motion.

Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed

If by disputed you mean offhandedly calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".

and have not been reproduced by the modern FES

Incorrect. I've reproduced the experiment. And I believe Charles K Johnson and Samuel Shenton reproduced it a number of times in their literature as well.

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands.

Check out the Flat Earth Literature link sometime. FET has been tested plenty of times.

Quote

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed

If by disuputed you mean calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Lady Blount had witnesses who can attest to the results of her trials.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

Why can't bodies of water be flat? Why can't the earth curve less at one area? Why can't they have fudged numbers?

Why can't bodies of water be flat? Why can't the earth curve less at one area? Why can't they have fudged numbers?

There are a number of factors that fudge the results of this experiment, and that is why the experiments have to be repeated several times or complemented with similar experiments.

The curvature of the Earth cannot be significantly different in some places compared with others. What can happen is that a canal will not have the surface of the water following exactly the curvature of the Earth, since friction is a very significant force when doing such a delicate experiment. Nobody makes canals where there is no flow of water, since the canal would have no use. And the shape of the surface of the water, in that case, depends on the friction the water encounters at each step of the way. Also, the refraction of light depends on the temperature of the air above the water, making the apparently easy experiment a lot harder than it seems.

The solution for all of the above is, obviously, to use a stretch of water much longer than 6 miles, so that the effects of refraction are smaller than the actual curvature of the Earth, and the use of lakes and the ocean (preferably lakes) so that the water flow is, on average, nil.

Nobody has ever even tried to replicate the experiments of Robotham and Lady Blouth on a larger scale, with better telescopes and experiment design, but examples of similar experiments abound, and the results are quite predictable.

Quote from: jimspade on February 27, 2010, 02:21:13 AM

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Lady Blount had witnesses who can attest to the results of her trials.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles.

A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
[/list]

Magnification, please?

Quote from: jimspade on February 27, 2010, 02:21:13 AM

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Lady Blount had witnesses who can attest to the results of her trials.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

Irrelevant.

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Quote from: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory? I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6, and it seems to me that FET fails to do these since it is not "plausible" (see Occam's Razor) or "a scientifically acceptable general principle", given the contradictions within the system and the inability of the FE community to agree on a single model for the shape of the Earth and its place in the solar system.

So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?

No. 

I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6

You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.

Quote from: jimspade on February 27, 2010, 02:21:13 AM

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Lady Blount had witnesses who can attest to the results of her trials.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
...
The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high
the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high
the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water
the telescope was 18in. above the water
...
The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.
...

This experiment is fails math at the outset. The author is using a quadratic approximation to determine the 'drop' behind the horizon, and hence estimates that the boat will be 7ft below the horizon. In fact, the 'bulge' of water over 6mi or about 9.6km is:
h=R(1-cos(S/R))
R=Radius
S=half the arclength between points
h=heigh of bulge

Run the math and you get about 1.4m. According to the story the notice board was 6ft. 6in or 2m above the water, so you should be able to see the notice board with a good telescope from 6mi away.

No problem here Tom, you got any other evidence?

I provide a more detailed diagram to go with the math in this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36101.40

The math used in the article in The English Mechanic is incorrect.

Lady Blout's test has no math, it requires us to believe that you can observe the difference between reflection of a white sheet on water and the sheet itself at a distance of 6mi.

Quote from: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 03:31:11 PM

So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?

No. 

Quote

I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6

You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.

Canadark is right in that FET is not a generally accepted scientific explanation, and it never will be as long as it requires a massive conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

It may be published in a respected journal, but its math is still wrong.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2010, 05:34:29 PM

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

It may be published in a respected journal, but its math is still wrong.

Actually, it's not.

Quote

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed

If by disputed you mean offhandedly calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".

Quote

and have not been reproduced by the modern FES

Incorrect. I've reproduced the experiment. And I believe Charles K Johnson and Samuel Shenton reproduced it a number of times in their literature as well.

Quote

My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands.

Check out the Flat Earth Literature link sometime. FET has been tested plenty of times.

Imagine that Rowbottom is John Glenn. Imagine that Blount is Alan Shepherd. Imagine that the witnesses of Blount's experiment are subsituted by the staff of tracking stations around the world and the guys in mission control. Imagine that Clifton's photos commissioned by Blount are those taken by other astronauts and cosmonauts.

Suddenly asking us to just accept what Rowbotham and Blount say makes you look a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

 

Quote from: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 03:31:11 PM

So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?

No. 

Quote

I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6

You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.

There is more than one possible or accepted definition of the term theory. I might say the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is evidence, and that seems to be the consensus on the FES boards.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 03:42:03 PM

Quote from: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 03:31:11 PM

So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?

No. 

Quote

I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6

You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.

Canadark is right in that FET is not a generally accepted scientific explanation, and it never will be as long as it requires a massive conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.

I'm not arguing over a faulty premise.  The only thing that matters is that according to the dictionary, FET, as it exists on these forums, is a theory.  It's bona fide.

Quote from: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
6: The Flat Earth hypothesis cannot be assumed true for the sake of argument in the debate forum since its validity is the topic of debate.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 03:11:18 PM

Quote from: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
6: The Flat Earth hypothesis cannot be assumed true for the sake of argument in the debate forum since its validity is the topic of debate.

All completely irrelevant to my point.

Seriously guys, if there's one thing this forum doesn't need more of it's yet another debate on the exact meaning of words. Is it a "theory"? Is it a "hypothesis"? Who cares?

Quote from: ERTW on February 27, 2010, 06:45:30 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 03:11:18 PM

Quote from: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
6: The Flat Earth hypothesis cannot be assumed true for the sake of argument in the debate forum since its validity is the topic of debate.

All completely irrelevant to my point.

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:04:06 PM

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

So giving his reasoning to why Flat Earth Theory don't fit the definition is irrelevant how?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:05:01 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:04:06 PM

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

So giving his reasoning to why Flat Earth Theory don't fit the definition is irrelevant how?

Because he's overlooking the relevant definition, of course.

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:05:01 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:04:06 PM

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

So giving his reasoning to why Flat Earth Theory don't fit the definition is irrelevant how?

Because he's overlooking the relevant definition, of course.

Care to elaborate on what I overlooked? I responded to each of the six definitions given from your dictionary quote.

Quote from: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM

I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).

I must respectfully disagree.  It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong. 

Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Definition 3 is used for scientific purposes. Just like the thoery of evolution is mostly considered fact.