Gravity. It disproves FE Theory.

Every single scientific theory is based on some sort of assumption, it has to.

One reason why I generally distrust science.

But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.

Only if you assume that the planets revolve around the sun in the first place.   You'll understand if I'm not ready to do that.

If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.

I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to.  Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.

Predictive power is overrated.  Astrologers have been accurately predicting the positions of the planets since long before it was a widespread belief that the Earth is spherical.  It didn't mean that their model was right.

One reason why I generally distrust science.

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Quote

But what makes Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws worth anything, what makes them special, and what makes them completely unlike FE hypotheses, is that they accurately describe the motion of the planets.

Only if you assume that the planets revolve around the sun in the first place.   You'll understand if I'm not ready to do that.

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

Anecdotes about the disdain of colleagues is much less impressive than predicting an as yet unknown planet, purely on mathematics.  It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow.  The evidence speaks for itself in this case.  Whatever superlatives I add on are essentially inconsequential when you get down to the basic fact that the theory -is- an astoundingly accurate tool for understanding how the physical world works.

Quote

That is what you have contend with, and it is the standard you should hold yourselves to.  Any theory you come up with to describe a Flat Earth should be able to make bold predictions, they should be testable, and the predictions will have to prove true.

Predictive power is overrated.  Astrologers have been accurately predicting the positions of the planets since long before it was a widespread belief that the Earth is spherical.  It didn't mean that their model was right.

It certainly means that Astrologers could predict the location of known planets, and in that respect their theory was right.  I would not take that away from them, and they should be accorded their place in history for it.  They certainly have done better at modelling the movement of the heavens than the FE hypothesis has.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 09, 2013, 10:25:04 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 08:36:39 PM

If you think that predicting the existence of Neptune and where to find it within one degree of its position is trivial, then that is your prerogative, but I think that is spectacular, and that it is prohibitively unlikely to be chance.

I don't understand how you can say with any certainty that it wasn't by chance.  The degree of accuracy was even accused of being blind luck by members of the scientific commnity when it was first discovered.  Apparently they disagreed that it was prohibitively unlikely.

Anecdotes about the disdain of colleagues is much less impressive than predicting an as yet unknown planet, purely on mathematics.  It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow.  The evidence speaks for itself in this case.  Whatever superlatives I add on are essentially inconsequential when you get down to the basic fact that the theory -is- an astoundingly accurate tool for understanding how the physical world works.

They predicted the position of an as yet unknown planet within one degree. The chances of doing that by accident are at best 1 in 360. Either they were really, really lucky, or they were right. I tend to think they were right.

Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk

Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk

I think he was using the compression of the mattress as an analogy for mass' effect on space-time, which gives rise to gravity.

Quote from: Tausami on May 10, 2013, 12:03:33 PM

Let's stop being silly. The gravitational constant in RET is .0000000000667, and to find gravitational attraction you multiply that number by mass and divide by distance squared. Your mass will do exactly nothing to a marble, even according to the globularists, lolflatdisk

I think he was using the compression of the mattress as an analogy for mass' effect on space-time, which gives rise to gravity.

Exactly

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 11:34:58 PM

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Start with the assumption the earth is flat, do some measurements, find out you're wrong OR start with the assumption the earth is round, do some measurements, find out you're right OR ask "what shape is the earth?", do some measurements, find out it's round. Whichever way you look at it, if you do the measurements, you'll get the answer.

Quote

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Again, you could start with a blank slate and still end up with the same answers. No assumptions necessary.

Quote

It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Start with the assumption the earth is flat, do some measurements, find out you're wrong OR start with the assumption the earth is round, do some measurements, find out you're right OR ask "what shape is the earth?", do some measurements, find out it's round. Whichever way you look at it, if you do the measurements, you'll get the answer.

With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 11:34:58 PM

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

You make the assumption that your senses can tell you all you need to know.

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.[/quote]

There was already reasons to suspect that the Earth was round at that point.  Unless you think there is another was they -should- have interpreted ships disappearing beneath the horizon or that the understanding of astronomy that contradicted the Earth being flat should be ignored?

Quote

It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit. 

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

[/quote]

I don't think you really understand what Dark Energy is, but it does not contradict gravity in the slightest.  In regards to Dark Matter, it does not really contradict Gravity... yet.  Although it could easily turn out to be this centuries Ether.  Scientists looking at a problem the wrong way.  It could very well up end the Theories of Gravitation, we could very well discover the universe works in a new and unanticipated way.  If so the scientific community would welcome it.

You make the assumption that your senses can tell you all you need to know.

I do no such thing.

There was already reasons to suspect that the Earth was round at that point.  Unless you think there is another was they -should- have interpreted ships disappearing beneath the horizon or that the understanding of astronomy that contradicted the Earth being flat should be ignored?

Ships disappearing "beneath" the horizon can be easily explained in a FE framework.  As for astronomy, looking away from the Earth to determine its shape is the last thing we should do.

I don't think you really understand what Dark Energy is, but it does not contradict gravity in the slightest.

When did I say that dark energy contradicts gravity?  It's reality that contradicts gravity; dark energy is there to fix it.

In regards to Dark Matter, it does not really contradict Gravity... yet.  Although it could easily turn out to be this centuries Ether.  Scientists looking at a problem the wrong way.  It could very well up end the Theories of Gravitation, we could very well discover the universe works in a new and unanticipated way.  If so the scientific community would welcome it.

See my response to the dark energy objection above.

With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

Quote

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

Quote

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

And that would be the zetetic approach.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

Quote

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

But Rama Set just said that when information is found that "doesn't quite fit" (a hell of an understatement in this instance), a theory is dealt "a crippling blow"!  Um, apparently not?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

Quote

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

What do you mean round Earth had 2000 years to "jam the pieces in place"? Mass is said to attract other mass by gravity, and as such, from this one axiom alone, you can show Mathematically that a clump of mass would form a sphere, everything would be forced to the centre of the Earth, and thus satellites could orbit if there's no air resistance, the moon orbits for the same reason, planets orbit the sun for the same reason, the tides happen because of gravity from the moon, etc. etc.

I don't see any "jamming the pieces in to fit" going on here. FET on the other hand - to get their puzzle sorted - can only do so by trying to glue the misshaped pieces together by using spit and tears.

This mass and gravity makes me laugh.
The stuff that's made up to fit a globe borders on the ridiculous  and I'm at a loss as to how, supposedly clever people willingly fall for it.

How can you judge when the clever people are at a level of intelligence far beyond yours?

It's as if it's a worship of scientists that makes people believe this crap, almost the same as someone having pictures of a pop group on their wall, then going to see them, whilst pulling out their hair and screaming when they come onto the stage.
At first I thought it was just an arrogance by some but it goes beyond that. It really is a worship of scientists, either historical or present.

I do. I admire many scientists and mathematicians, both alive and dead.

Some of the things they've figured out - especially in maths - has often had me awestruck in disbelief at how ingenious it is.

We have no chance on this earth as a race.

lol? You're such a troll...

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 10, 2013, 07:14:54 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

With zeteticism, you're not starting with any assumptions.  It all starts with observation.

The third option I offered made no assumptions:  "...ask 'what shape is the earth?'..."

And that would be the zetetic approach.

Quote

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

Quote

The revision of theories has been covered elsewhere.

If you weren't going to address the point why even say anything?

I didn't want to waffle on about how theories are revised when some new information is found that doesn't quite fit, others have done that plenty of times here in the past. However, I don't think the expansion of the universe contradicts gravity anyway.

But Rama Set just said that when information is found that "doesn't quite fit" (a hell of an understatement in this instance), a theory is dealt "a crippling blow"!  Um, apparently not?

There is an enormous difference between incorporating new information and having a theory be falsified. Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with. In this case there is no reason to toss any theory out based on them, but there is some rethinking to do. Implications must be reconsidered. They have to figure out wtf Dark Matter even is. They have to reconcile why their predictions about the effects of Dark Energy are so much more than what is observed. No theory has been falsified though, so until then they will proceed from what they know they know, and what they know they don't, hoping to find out what they didn't know they didn't know.

Quote

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 06:04:55 PM

Quote

Modern FET has had a lot less time to mature, yes, but the idea that the earth is flat has been around far longer than the idea that it's round.

Who cares about the "idea" that the Earth was flat if it was never rigorously studied via a well-defined methodology?  As I said, if after two thousand years and change the math hasn't been worked out, then you can complain that FET doesn't explain things or predict things as well as RET.

My point here was that there has been more time available to 'rigorously study' the idea of a flat earth, because the idea existed before the idea of the round earth. No one has tried to stop the study of flat earth ideas over the last 2000-odd years (like they did with the study of round earth ideas; I recall a story of a round earth proponent being threatened with execution if he kept promoting his ideas), and there have been plenty of people working on it, but there is still nothing solid because it's almost impossible to reconcile the idea of a flat earth with observations of the world we live on.

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

[/quote]

I think you are being a little Ethnocentric here. The Islamic world was extremely rationale and scientifically developed while the Christian world was in the dark ages. The Greeks did some amazing scientific and mathematical work before Christianity even existed.

It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?

Gravity has a model that does not work. Instead of looking at the data and rebuilding from a blank slate, the Orthodoxy has introduced Dark Energy/Matter to account for the discrepancy. Saying that if you introduce ill-defined, completely hypothetical energy/matter, the theory of gravity is somehow suddenly congruous is misleading at best, or delusional or deliberately deceitful at worst.
Completely hypothetical matter whose only "known" attribute is to "exist" in precisely the right amount with the precisely right properties to reconcile your model with reality is not science. You may as well substitute "fairies" for "Dark Matter".

Gravity has a model that does not work. Instead of looking at the data and rebuilding from a blank slate, the Orthodoxy has introduced Dark Energy/Matter to account for the discrepancy. Saying that if you introduce ill-defined, completely hypothetical energy/matter, the theory of gravity is somehow suddenly congruous is misleading at best, or delusional or deliberately deceitful at worst.
Completely hypothetical matter whose only "known" attribute is to "exist" in precisely the right amount with the precisely right properties to reconcile your model with reality is not science. You may as well substitute "fairies" for "Dark Matter".

And yet Dark Matter/Energy is what is propelling the Earth under UA theory...

I've already commented on my distaste for "dark energy" elsewhere.

"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 10, 2013, 10:13:29 PM

Unfortunately by the time we had developed reason enough to the point where such rigorous study was possible, the Church had already developed a stranglehold on most of the civilized world.  It has been taken for granted by the scientific community ever since that the Earth is round.  Flat Earth Theory really never had a chance to develop until the good Dr Rowbotham dared to challenge the convention of his day.  Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality.  Say, 1000 years.

What do you mean round Earth had 2000 years to "jam the pieces in place"? Mass is said to attract other mass by gravity, and as such, from this one axiom alone, you can show Mathematically that a clump of mass would form a sphere, everything would be forced to the centre of the Earth, and thus satellites could orbit if there's no air resistance, the moon orbits for the same reason, planets orbit the sun for the same reason, the tides happen because of gravity from the moon, etc. etc.

If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? 

Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.

Why do you keep saying this?  Do you really understand your own model so poorly?

It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?

No, what I know to be true has already been proven.  It is something I can see with my own two eyes.  There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework. 

Quote from: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 04:29:02 AM

Dark matter and energy were new information to deal with.

Why do you keep saying this?  Do you really understand your own model so poorly?

Your implication is unclear, but if you think that a theory should not be able to accommodate new information then you are more dogmatic than I thought. Feel free to dispel any misapprehension I have of your statement.

Quote

It always struck me as utterly unZetetic to say, "Give us some time and I'm confident that you will see that the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in just as elegantly, if not more, from a FE perspective, if given more than 2000 years to try to jam the pieces in place.  Hell, I'll even say it should happen a lot sooner, given that FE is reality. " or some iteration thereof. You are basically saying the world does not seem to match what I "know" to be true, but it will!  How are you proceeding from observation anymore?

No, what I know to be true has already been proven.  It is something I can see with my own two eyes.  There's no doubt in my mind that the Earth is flat, and that such a model can be fully supported with an accurate mathematical framework.

[/quote]

I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception. On your view you should not believe in atoms, viruses or chemistry. But you have made a special case of the Earth's shape, where your eyes are the ultimate arbiter of the truth. Its simply absurd to think your naked eyes can tell the truth about the totality of an object with a circumference of 40,000kms.

I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.

I don't think my senses are a limit to my perception.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 14, 2013, 08:52:30 PM

I always find it incredible when seemingly rational people think that their senses are a limit to their perception.

I don't think my senses are a limit to my perception.

Thanks.

If it was this simple, why did it take you guys almost two millenia to figure out? 

The stranglehold of the church hindered scientific progress for a majority of that time. Things only really kicked off since Newton.
It also wasn't known for a long time that the acceleration due to gravity was independent of mass. Basically, air resistance was a big culprit for skewing all the results.

Given the time we're in, collaboration is as simple as jumping on the net, and data about our world can be found everywhere. Why do you think the UA theory was conceived so quickly since the birth of this forum? If we were in a Universe where the Earth was actually flat, do you think it would've taken just a few years for these ancient people to figure out UA theory? Of course not, it would've also taken them millennia to figure out.

Clearly in this day and age, scientific collaboration happens much, much faster. This speaks volumes about the causes as to why an accurate flat Earth map hasn't been created yet. It's definitely not because you need 2000 years, it's because it's not possible to make.

Because the natural position of Earthly objects is the center of the universe, of course 

In seriousness, though, the prevailing theories are that the Earth is either accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s² or that the Earth is infinitely large.

This is meant to be serious? Okay...

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 11:34:58 PM

Every single pursuit of any sort of knowledge relies on assumptions at some point.  I am not sure why science should be held in any less regard.  Indeed, science should earn more trust for all the ideas they throw out on bad evidence.

Wrong.  Zeteticism starts with a blank slate and works from there.  No assumptions are necessary.  That's why it's the superior methodology.

Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Quote

I won't understand unless you explain it.  There are many motions of the planet that have only been adquately explained on a heliocentric view.  The model fits -perfectly-.

It requires that one start with the assumption that the Earth isn't flat.  I believe I've already covered this.

Not with just one assumption but with many others aswell; The flat earth starts with the assumption that perception is accurate, which is demonstrated to be false by many things, not least Gestalt Psychology.

Quote

It is an astoundingly strong test of the theory.  If they did not find the planet, or even if it were in the wrong place, the Theory of Gravitation would have been dealt a crippling blow..

I call BS on that.  If that were the case, observations regarding the expansion of the universe and the cohesiveness of galaxies should have been a crippling blow as well.  But hello dark matter and dark energy.  When mainstream scientists see something that doesn't fit their long-cherished theories they figure out a way to pigeonhole things so they still fit.

There is a certain amount of truth to this claim. 

I'd like to add that RET has had centuries to build up its theories while modern FET has had less than two.  I see no reason to assume that given a similar length of time FE zetetics will have the math figured out as accurately as RE scientists do.

I call BS. FE has been falsified time and again; rowbotham was just one new resurgence of the theory, because he wanted to protect his precious religious feels.

Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.

Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.

Quote from: Amalgafiend on May 15, 2013, 03:00:29 AM

Isn't the fact that you think it starts with a blank slate an assumption?

Don't fall for his lies. They began with the assumption that the Earth was flat, and then worked from there. They also assume so much to get to where they are today with their multitude of theories.

Just ask them about their bendy light theory. They've never observed light to bend in the way they need it to, but rather they claim it to be the case because it needs to be so their theory can hold some water. Never mind that there are also many other holes in the theory that can't be explained even with unobserved scientific phenomena.

I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

I know about "their" bendy light "theory" - I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks.

I think the assumtion they are working form, if we are to be more accurate, is that the bible is true; or at least this is the assumption rowbotham's re-ignition of the flat earth theory, from which this forum derives its influence, is working from.

I don't think they want to be associated with the bible's viewpoint. From what I've seen, most of the FEers make it sound as though their initial assumption is because it looks flat on a local scale.

I do know of one person however that doesn't believe the Earth is rotating. However, how that leads to the conclusion that Earth must be flat and not simply a geocentric model, I'm not sure.