Older school (historical data) supports FET.
Nope. Not for the past 400 years it hasn't. Since the earlier days of Copernicus and Kepler, and later the scientist Galileo—when geocentricity as espoused by the Catholic church was exposed as a bogus non-scientific model of our solar system.
Newer school methodology forces RET onto its believers.
No again. As far as astrophysics and geophysics is concerned, there is
no such thing as "newer school methodology". There's also
no such thing as "round earth
theory". The oblate spheroid shape of the planet is an accepted fact of geophysics supported by irrefutable observational
and theoretical evidence. All of Newtonian physics and all expected astrophysical phenomena and all observed stellar configurations comply precisely with the spherical earth scenario. The sizes and orbits of the sun and moon; the seasons; auroras; global lines of sight; gravity and magnetism; man-made low-orbit satellites; cyclones and deep ocean currents; great circle sea and air navigation; ocean tides; etc. Against this we have nothing more than a flat earth
hypothesis accepted by a mere few hundred people on the planet. The flat earthers can't even name half a dozen accredited scientists who accept the round earth model—can you
gotham?
There is little chance of escape from disingenuous Earth shape propagation until FET study is once again returned and considered part of the normal educational regimen.
A major
non sequitur. Your fallacy results from your simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition —a "disingenuous" earth shape—to your negative, consequential "chance of escape". And sadly, for you and your peers
gotham, no sort of flat earth hypothesis will ever be taught as part of a "normal" educational regimen. Why? Because it'd be tantamount to teaching young-earth creationism instead of Darwinian evolution. And totally distorting the accredited tenets of science.
Let this then be the thread where REers attempt to prove their claim of roundness...without resorting to their new school, blind faithed reasoning. Every other attempt has failed.
As has been posted numerous time on these forums, the burden of proof lies upon the flat earthers to prove
their case. The round earthers have more than adequately presented their evidence (in a somewhat limited scope due to the posting restrictions on forums) and can be expected to do no more.
The round earthers have posted dozens of photographic images, diagrammatic representations, geometric figures, computer-generated illustrations, maps—both historical and contemporary, clear explanations of radar, satellite transmissions, aeronautics, jet propulsion, the Coriolis effect, weather patterns, gravitational effects, etc. Whereas the flat earthers have yet to post one single photographic image of their flat earth, a universally accepted model, any sort of original map, and virtually no diagrams or even a computer-generated image. Their one and only pseudo-flat earth map is a
round earth azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole. Which never ceases to give me a good laugh whenever I see it—even on the Flat earth Wiki of all places!
And, interestingly—and laughably—it's the flat earthers who invariably resort to "blind faithed reason" to support their case. Although that phrase sounds awfully like an oxymoron to me. Faith and reason cannot be conflated. Faith relies solely on personal belief, whereas reason relies on observation, replication, and peer review. I have "faith" that I'll see the sun at dawn tomorrow, but I have no "reason" to accept that it's inevitable.