FE'er challenge...conclusive proof of a FE

04/17/2011 EDIT:  I will not be able to continue this thread as I am removing myself from this forum:
theflatearthsociety.org > Other > Discussion Boards > The Lounge > Farewell.

==============================================================

Ok, the gauntlet was thrown, and I have accepted the challenge.  The claim was made that there is undeniable Zetetic Proof that the earth was indeed flat and not round.  This was spawned from the following replies:

Quote from: gotham on March 26, 2011, 06:14:18 PM

Quote from: Oracle on March 26, 2011, 06:00:45 PM

Quote from: gotham on March 26, 2011, 05:43:16 PM

Quote from: Oracle on March 26, 2011, 05:33:02 PM

Quote from: Samuel 'Parallax' Birley Rowbotham, in the Preface of Zetetic Astronomy {1881}

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Hrmmm... "truth in our favour"

Not a very open minded person... doesn't seem like he is really following true Zetetic Principles at all.  Actually seems like he has a lot of confirmation bias to contend with....  Much like many of the members on this site, he probably wouldn't believe that the earth was round even if you showed him a picture of it (or video of it actually rotating) from space.

A paraphrase of Dr. Rowbotham's quote bolded there would be "there is so much Zetetic truth backed up in our favour by experimental evidence" so he is on firm footing there.  

True Zetetic truth is open to all possibilities, including the idea of a round earth.  Dr. Rowbotham clearly rejects anything that does not agree with his preconceived notions for a Flat Earth, and tried desperately to create fanciful explanations to explain away observable phenomena that does not conform to his way of thinking.

This type of methodology is not called Zetetic Truth, it is called Confirmation Bias.

The experimental evidence gathered was both limited in scope and intrinsically flawed.  At best, his results were inconclusive of a Flat or Round Earth.

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

Show me just one experiment of his that I cannot logically refute with Zetetic wisdom.

So, here are the rules of this challenge.

FE'ers: Bring absolute conclusive proof of a Flat Earth from any source.  Data and results have to be accurate to the best of your knowledge, and they have to leave absolutely no doubt in any readers' mind that the earth must indeed be flat.

For myself, I will show with Zetetic wisdom why other options may still be possible that the earth is still round with the experiments performed at hand.  I will see what holes exist in the data and the interpretation of the data there of.  All I have to do is cast even a glimmer of doubt such that anyone reading (not everyone) that the conclusions were in error and that the earth could still be spherical in shape.

RE'ers You get a more creative outlet, in addition to analyzing my review and letting everyone know if sufficient doubt was provided... you get to come up with the most far-fetched off the wall scenario about why the shown evidence could be some other shape besides the outside of a sphere or on top of a flat disk... Mobius Strip? figure eight? inside of a sphere? let your imagination go wild.

Ready?  Go!

FE proof, read ENaG. I believe all available proof is in here.


 

FE proof, read ENaG. I believe all available proof is in here.  

Choose one experiment to present, I'm not going to do the whole book at one sitting.  Which one?

If you do not select one for yourself, then I'll choose for you.  But please keep it to one experiment at a time and not multiple experiments at once.

34. If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be - if we could imagine the thing to be peopled all round - "antipodes:" "people who," says the dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours: - people who are hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But, since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth where the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have left behind - us to be heads downwards, it follows that the whole thing is a myth - a dream - a delusion - and a snare; and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate the popular theory, it is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

What an intelligent man.

Quote

34. If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be - if we could imagine the thing to be peopled all round - "antipodes:" "people who," says the dictionary, "living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, have their feet opposite to ours: - people who are hanging heads downwards whilst we are standing heads up! But, since the theory allows us to travel to those parts of the Earth where the people are said to be heads downwards, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards and our friends whom we have left behind - us to be heads downwards, it follows that the whole thing is a myth - a dream - a delusion - and a snare; and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate the popular theory, it is a plain proof that the Earth is not a globe.

What an intelligent man.

Ahh, my first challenge and from a RE'er no less!

This is easy enough.  Suppose there were a force such as gravity that attracts all upon the face of the earth strongly toward the center of a roughly spherical shape.  You can easily illustrate that the above would then clearly be true by using a mere basketball and walking your fingers across the surface of the ball such that your fingers remain perpendicular to the surface and roughly pointing toward the center at all times.

Keep in mind that I'm not stating that the earth is either flat or round, but by Zetetic Wisdom, we cannot exclude a possible explanation just because we think it may be unlikely.  We must continue to consider all possibilities as potentially real.

ENaG & "Paralax" 0 / "Oracle" 1

That was something that Rowbotham wrote, and meant it to be serious?

That wasn't Rowbotham.  It was from William Carpenter's 100 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe.

That wasn't Rowbotham.  It was from William Carpenter's 100 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe.

Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified.

33. If the Earth were a globe, people - except those on the top - would, certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.

lul

That wasn't Rowbotham.  It was from William Carpenter's 100 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe.

Ok, so some person wrote that and meant it to be serious?

Quote from: markjo on March 26, 2011, 10:49:28 PM

That wasn't Rowbotham.  It was from William Carpenter's 100 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe.

Ok, so some person wrote that and meant it to be serious?

Probably about as serious as one could be on the topic of the earth being flat. 

Quote from: sillyrob on March 26, 2011, 10:58:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 26, 2011, 10:49:28 PM

That wasn't Rowbotham.  It was from William Carpenter's 100 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Globe.

Ok, so some person wrote that and meant it to be serious?

Probably about as serious as one could be on the topic of the earth being flat. 

It's amazing that such literature has stuck around all these years and kept tens of followers to this day.

Reading ENaG will solve all of this and experiments have been duplicated.

FYI, I am taking your win away that you previously claimed because you make unproven assumption.  You are back to square one.  If you make this thread my challenge as you did, then I am referee and will make the final judgement on all claims.   

To continue...

A statement of fact has created the apparent need for this thread to exist.  It has my name attached to it and has a stated purpose of gauntlet and challenges and verbiage indicative of need of a final say.  That say will come from me in this arena and any other that has its roots started here.

Ok,  back to it!   

With regards to the FAQ:

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

Problems with the sun's horizontal position are brought up in this thread.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43439.0

Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Except that the sun should never go anywhere near the horizon - even at midnight:

Here's a scale model of the flat earth as described in the FAQ with a diagram showing the sun's angular position at midnight.

Reading ENaG will solve all of this and experiments have been duplicated.

FYI, I am taking your win away that you previously claimed because you make unproven assumption.  You are back to square one.  If you make this thread my challenge as you did, then I am referee and will make the final judgment on all claims.  

You actually can't dispute my win, because I was refuting a statement of opinion only, there were no facts, data, or experiment given to prove conclusively that the earth MUST unconditionally indeed be flat.

You forget the rules, I only have to show that it is possible for an alternative to a FE to exist based on the data at hand.  I don't have to prove anything, just have a viable working argument to the contrary.

But to be fair... maybe Markjo would be willing to be score keeper on this?

To continue...

A statement of fact has created the apparent need for this thread to exist.  It has my name attached to it and has a stated purpose of gauntlet and challenges and verbiage indicative of need of a final say.  That say will come from me in this arena and any other that has its roots started here.

Ok,  back to it!    

You made your biased statement of opinion as if it were fact, you were challenging my initial statement, I rose to meet the challenge, so the choice of venue and how this will proceed is mine, not yours.

Again, I'm not going to address the entirety of the whole EaNG in one sitting, I have already adequately refuted the first 21 pages as mostly useless conjecture and opinion and gross assumptions in another thread.  Either pick something specific from it, or I will pick it for you.  If I get to pick, then I can choose whatever I want, that doesn't seem fair, so I'm giving you the opportunity to pick something that is completely irrefutable by Zetetic standards.

Remember, assumptions cut both ways, but I don't have to prove that the earth is round, just show that it could be based on the information at hand.  You, however, do have to provide conclusive proof, (or at the least, very very convincing evidence) because that was the claim.

A paraphrase of Dr. Rowbotham's quote bolded there would be "there is so much Zetetic truth backed up in our favour by experimental evidence" so he is on firm footing there.  

So, justify it.

Perhaps one score keeper per side?
Markjo for RE and Dr. Bishop for FE?

Perhaps one score keeper per side?
Markjo for RE and Dr. Bishop for FE?

Didn't Hampden and Wallace have a similar problem with biased judges?

With regards to the FAQ:

Quote

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

In both the Davis and the Bishop model, the Earth is an infinite plane.

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

Problems with the sun's horizontal position are brought up in this thread.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43439.0

Quote

Q: "Please explain sunrises and sunsets."

A: It is a perspective effect. The sun is just getting farther away: it looks like it is disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Except that the sun should never go anywhere near the horizon - even at midnight:

Quote from: Nolhekh on March 26, 2011, 05:17:57 PM

Here's a scale model of the flat earth as described in the FAQ with a diagram showing the sun's angular position at midnight.

** Cut: Sun at midnight image **

This is not FE evidence (it is unqualified information as provided in a FAQ), and the asked question already unfairly casts FET into doubt.  Please put questions not pertaining to this challenge in a separate thread to help reduce clutter.  

This thread is not about providing evidence that the earth is round nor is it about providing evidence that the earth is not flat either.  It is an examination of true Zetetic thinking and the problem with jumping to biased conclusions prematurely.

** Note: By unqualified information, I merely state that this is provided for informational purposes only in a Q&A format, but it is not directly backed up with evidence within the FAQ itself for brevity sake.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 27, 2011, 08:15:57 AM

Perhaps one score keeper per side?
Markjo for RE and Dr. Bishop for FE?

Didn't Hampden and Wallace have a similar problem with biased judges?

Unfortunately, the scorekeeper should be as unbiased of a RE as possible....  All FE has to do is score just 1 point... just 1... to meet my challenge, my score merely just keeps track of the number of issues addressed, and is only an indicator of the volume of presented challenges, not really anything more than that.

Perhaps the scoring should be more like this:

# challenges adequately met and refuted: 1
# of unmet challenges where there was a concession that conclusive proof of a FE was adequately provide: 0

But that just seemed a bit long winded to me.  But technically, only a RE'er can really look at this to see if my case and reasoning sheds doubt on the FE model (hence why I suggested Markjo).  Because if the evidence is so completely convincing that the earth is NOT round, then it should be sufficient to sway a RE'er and have them admit that the earth is indeed flat.

Inappropriate picture removed.

**Several pics cut**

Ok, I especially liked the water skiing pic, but was there a point to these pics, or was this just unnecessary thread spamming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Gravity does not hold. In order for mankind not to float off the "round" Earth, it would have to constantly accelerate in opposite directions simultaneously. Also, gravity does not apply to bananas as confirmed by my attempt at performing the Cavendish experiment (which I have challenged people many times to reproduce, or provide other form of proof that this fruit specifically extorts a gravitational force, and to no response). Without the magical instrument that is gravity, RE is an impossibility.

Both Dr Bishop and Markjo are great choices for a co-referee/score keeping  position.

My name, my thread, choice made, done deal pending approval of the participants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Gravity does not hold. In order for mankind not to float off the "round" Earth, it would have to constantly accelerate in opposite directions simultaneously.

Why would the earth need to accelerate if it has gravity?  Just because you don't buy a concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also to accept that gravitational anomalies exist, requires you to accept that gravity exists, whatever it actually is, or causes it, or in what precise manner it behaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Gravity does not hold. In order for mankind not to float off the "round" Earth, it would have to constantly accelerate in opposite directions simultaneously. Also, gravity does not apply to bananas as confirmed by my attempt at performing the Cavendish experiment (which I have challenged people many times to reproduce, or provide other form of proof that this fruit specifically extorts a gravitational force, and to no response). Without the magical instrument that is gravity, RE is an impossibility.

Wikipedia is not a credible source because it's controlled by globularists.

Both Dr Bishop and Markjo are great choices for a co-referee/score keeping  position.

My name, my thread, choice made, done deal pending approval of the participants.

No, my thread, I put up the OP, not you.  But I'll agree to the terms as long as the scoreboard is renamed as follows:

# challenges adequately met and refuted:
# of unmet challenges where there was a concession that conclusive proof of a FE was adequately provide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Gravity does not hold. In order for mankind not to float off the "round" Earth, it would have to constantly accelerate in opposite directions simultaneously. Also, gravity does not apply to bananas as confirmed by my attempt at performing the Cavendish experiment (which I have challenged people many times to reproduce, or provide other form of proof that this fruit specifically extorts a gravitational force, and to no response). Without the magical instrument that is gravity, RE is an impossibility.

I doubt I could obtain enough mass in bananas without living in south America to perform this experiment.  Fortunately, I don't have to, until it is adequately preformed, the results are indeterminate (not proof that bananas do not exert a gravitational force just because the experiment has not been satisfactorily performed).

The wiki article you submitted makes a strong case for the existence of gravity, and does not seem to discount it as an attractive force that is seen as a natural phenomena.  A fact that can be clearly seen in the opening lines:

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

Using your preconceived bias to call gravity a 'magical instrument', does not negate the fact that it remains a possibility to be seriously considered, that coincidentally is literally supported as a "natural phenomena" by billions of people around the (disc-shaped or globular) world.

This evidence does not conclusively use Zetetic Wisdom to disprove a Round Earth, further, it does not conclusively prove a flat disk either.  Options must remain open at this time.

Judges, is this sufficient, or do you need more from me to show that the evidence provided is Zetetically inconclusive?

 

Nolhekh, sillyrob, You guys aren't playing the game... remember, you are supposed to come up with outlandish, yet viable alternatives, based on the evidence provided, to the structure, shape, and nature of the earth that is different than the RE or FE models.

For inspiration, think: migratory lunar bio-luminescent telepathic shrimp-like bacteria.

May I suggest the inside of a spinning cylinder for this last one on gravity as a 'magical instrument'?

Quote from: gotham on March 27, 2011, 09:00:40 AM

Both Dr Bishop and Markjo are great choices for a co-referee/score keeping  position.

My name, my thread, choice made, done deal pending approval of the participants.

No, my thread, I put up the OP, not you.  But I'll agree to the terms as long as the scoreboard is renamed as follows:

# challenges adequately met and refuted:
# of unmet challenges where there was a concession that conclusive proof of a FE was adequately provide:

I don't know what the second one means?

You will know when I make a challenge to you because it will be expressed as such.  I took a bit of offense to arriving and seeing an assumption of challenge instead a thread started by me specifically challenging you to that that I wish to challenge you to. Yes, you started the thread and it is yours in that regards. Since it is deemed my challenge I will still control all aspects of it (sans assigning dual referee status), other than technically calling it your thread. 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 27, 2011, 08:50:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Gravity does not hold. In order for mankind not to float off the "round" Earth, it would have to constantly accelerate in opposite directions simultaneously. Also, gravity does not apply to bananas as confirmed by my attempt at performing the Cavendish experiment (which I have challenged people many times to reproduce, or provide other form of proof that this fruit specifically extorts a gravitational force, and to no response). Without the magical instrument that is gravity, RE is an impossibility.

I doubt I could obtain enough mass in bananas without living in south America to perform this experiment.  Fortunately, I don't have to, until it is adequately preformed, the results are indeterminate (not proof that bananas do not exert a gravitational force just because the experiment has not been satisfactorily performed).

The wiki article you submitted makes a strong case for the existence of gravity, and does not seem to discount it as an attractive force that is seen as a natural phenomena.  A fact that can be clearly seen in the opening lines:

Quote

Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

Using your preconceived bias to call gravity a 'magical instrument', does not negate the fact that it remains a possibility to be seriously considered, that coincidentally is literally supported as a "natural phenomena" by billions of people around the (disc-shaped or globular) world.

This evidence does not conclusively use Zetetic Wisdom to disprove a Round Earth, further, it does not conclusively prove a flat disk either.  Options must remain open at this time.

Judges, is this sufficient, or do you need more from me to show that the evidence provided is Zetetically inconclusive?

Please appreciate the difference between gravity and gravitation. Also, I don't need to prove that bananas don't extort gravity - I have already witnessed the fact that they don't, and you seem fairly convinced that you're unable to get different results. Now, if you'd like to prove that they do, you're welcome to try. Otherwise, I'm afraid that's pretty conclusive.