Scientific Proof? Where?

Acording to the so called 'Flat Earth FAQ' (FEFAQ) there is scientific proof that helps the flat earth theory. But on th whole page I didn't find a singe Iota of scientific evidence! (Or mabye I just didn't read it properly  )

So, where is this scientific evidence, I'd like to see it.

I hate to break this to you, but facts are not found in the FAQ, because FAQ is not a misspelling of the word fact, it is an acronym for the phrase Frequently Asked Questions. And as such exists for the sole purpose of answering those Questions on the forum which are Asked Frequently.

That's no answer GeoGuy.

Who da man, the only serious evidence provided by the FE'ers are the experiments performed by Samuel Rowbotham in the 1880's.  Ironically, there is a link to his works in the FAQ

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

These experiments though, are more then a hundred years old, have never been reliably repeated, and fail to observe phenomena that are observed every day.  In short, Rowbotham was not a scientist, and it shows up in his experiments.

In addition, it's not good scientist to trust a 100-year-old experiment without being able to duplicate it.  Science is about the objective experimental repetition of results, which Rowbothams experiments often fail at.

 Ironically, there is a link to his works in the FAQ

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

You know, even that link disputes the accuracy of his works, heres the preface/disclaimer to the table of contents:

Samuel Birley Rowbotham, under the pseudonym 'Parallax', lectured for two decades up and down Britain promoting his unique flat earth theory. This book, in which he lays out his world system, went through three editions, starting with a 16 page pamphlet published in 1849 and a second edition of 221 pages published in 1865. The third edition of 1881 (which had inflated to 430 pages) was used as the basis of this etext.

Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents, and his followers, who included many well-educated people, were equally tenacious. One of them, John Hampden, got involved in a bet with the famous naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace about the flat earth. An experiment which Hampden proposed didn't resolve the issue, and the two ended up in court in 1876. The judge ruled against Hampton, who started a long campaign of legal harassment of Wallace. Rowbotham hints at the incident in this book.

Rowbotham believed that the earth is flat. The contients float on an infinite ocean which somehow has a layer of fire underneath it. The lands we know are surrounded by an infinite wilderness of ice and snow, beyond the Antarctic ocean, bordered by an immense circular ice-cliff. What we call the North Pole is in the center of the earth.

The polar projection of the flat earth creates obvious discrepancies with known geography, particularly the farther south you go. Figure 54 inadvertantly illustrates this problem. The Zetetic map has a severly squashed South America and Africa, and Australia and New Zealand in the middle of the Pacific. I think that by the 19th century people would have noticed if Australia and Africa were thousands of miles further apart than expected, let alone if Africa was wider than it was long!

The Zetetic Sun, moon, planets and stars are all only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth. The sun orbits the north pole once a day at a constant altitude. The moon is both self-illuminated and semi-transparent. Eclipses can be explained by some unknown object occulting the sun or moon. Zetetic cosmology is 'faith-based', based, that is, on a literal interpretation of selected Biblical quotes. Hell is exactly as advertised, directly below us. Heaven is not a state of mind, it is a real place, somewhere above us. He uses Ussherian Biblical chronology to mock the concept that stars could be millions of light years away. He attacks the concept of a plurality of worlds because no other world than this one is mentioned in the Bible.

Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Zetetic Astronomy is a key work of flat-earth thought, just as Donnelly's Atlantis, the Antediluvian World is still considered required reading on the subject of Atlantis. If you ever have to debate the flat earth pro or con, this book is a complete agenda of each point that you'll have to argue.

--John Bruno Hare, June 16th, 2005.

The work--if it were true--would disprove RE very nicely... the problem is, it's from the 1880s, and I don't think people have managed to repeat it...

The work--if it were true--would disprove RE very nicely... the problem is, it's from the 1880s, and I don't think people have managed to repeat it...

If they did, we would have accepted the earthto be flat.

Not exactly phaseshifter.

As I said before, science is about the objective repetition of results.  If someone said that they had repeated Rowbothams experiments, and concluded that the Erath was round, you should still be skeptical.

Only after several scientists had independently verified the results, should you accept them as valid.  It works that way for all science, not just FE.

Well said, Max.  The only argument FErs have is blind denial of incontrovertible proof, and blind acceptance of spurious evidence.

As well as the fact that FE'rs usualy are the people who think the goverment is after them.

As well as the fact that FE'rs usualy are the people who think the goverment is after them.

I've never heard any FEers say that, or give any indication that they felt that way.

Not exactly phaseshifter.

As I said before, science is about the objective repetition of results.  If someone said that they had repeated Rowbothams experiments, and concluded that the Erath was round, you should still be skeptical.

Only after several scientists had independently verified the results, should you accept them as valid.  It works that way for all science, not just FE.

I meant if it had been repeated succesfully about a hundred times. but it has not. So sphere we are.

I've never heard any FEers say that, or give any indication that they felt that way.

Conspiracy

How does conspiracy = gov't out to get me?

Let's get back to the point, which is, you have no evidence.  You have some experiments which don't pass the independent verification test, and then you have...  ??  Nothing.

The concept of flat Earth has been disproven countless times, and can be done so just by looking out of the window of an airplane.

I'm guessing none of you FErs live near a beach either.  The curvature of the Earth is plainly visible.  Did the government bend the oceans too?

Rather than baseless speculation, I challenge you to provide hard evidence supporting your position.

The concept of flat Earth has been disproven countless times, and can be done so just by looking out of the window of an airplane.

Hmm, I fly a lot, which means I look out of the windows a lot, and have never seen this curvature.

Let's get back to the point, which is, you have no evidence.  You have some experiments which don't pass the independent verification test, and then you have...  ??  Nothing.

The concept of flat Earth has been disproven countless times, and can be done so just by looking out of the window of an airplane.

I'm guessing none of you FErs live near a beach either.  The curvature of the Earth is plainly visible.  Did the government bend the oceans too?

Rather than baseless speculation, I challenge you to provide hard evidence supporting your position.

lol, don't get started on the proofing stuff... look around the forum a little and u'll find a topic about who the onus is on to prove things...u won't be happy i assure u

lol, don't get started on the proofing stuff... look around the forum a little and u'll find a topic about who the onus is on to prove things...u won't be happy i assure u

Well said, person who can barely construct a coherent sentence.  What the hell's an "onus" and where can I get one?