Why is a RET nonsense to you FEers

I mean a RET is the most logical explanation.  It works with gravity, the moon, sun, stars, magnetic fields, space exploration, almost any form of physics.  Is it so far fetch that the earth is round?  Is it far fetch that the sun is round?  I mean since none of you have proof that the earth is flat you try to use logic.  However logic is in a rounded earths favor.  If there was some massive conspiracy the beans would be spilled.  You say nasa is involved, but what about before nasa?  What about historical proof?  Why does this site exist if it is the so called "truth". 

This is just as sad as the Reptilian alien theory. 

The flat earthers seem not to realise that in the world of astrophysics, NASA is the new boy on the block.  It only came into existence in 1958, a year after Sputnik 1 made its epic journey.  This means that since its inception, NASA has actually had very little input as far as planetary and cosmic science's progression since the 16th century.  And in the early 19th century, the flattening of the earth ellipsoid was determined to be of the order of 1/300 (it's actually 1/298.25).

When I was at school, NASA wasn't even in existence, and astrophysics certainly didn't suddenly change when it became so—in order to support the flat earthers' notions of them being an agent of lies and disinformation funded by an equally corrupt US government.

BTW, the round earth is not just a "theory";  it's the scientific status quo.  And will remain so until it's disproved to be that.

It is not so much that RET does not make sense, it is that they start with the conclusion that the earth is flat and work backwards.  RET is either a misinterpretation of the flat earth, or it is a hoax that some cabal of global conspirators have created to trick people into thinking the earth is not flat.  To the FETer, evidence is something to explain.  True science makes predictions and creates experiments that can prove or disprove a hypothesis.  A big hole with FET is that every time they try to explain one observation, the explanation does not work with other observations.  At this point it is time to call in the conspiracy or just claim it is some 'bendy' effect of light or some such non sense.

Part of the issue is the nature of language.  Most words have multiple meanings and subtle differences in connotation.  Take the word free for example, Merriam Webster has 15 definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

So the term 'free thinker' can be interpreted many ways.  Free thinking in therms of FET amounts to 'worthless thinking'. 

The confusion comes in when they claim someone who accepts RET is not a free thinker.  Somehow there is a leap of reason that makes that claim self evident to the FETer.  But there is a great amount of freedom in RET, one is free to test any and all claims and if something is found to be incorrect and can be demonstrated, the results will be added to the sum of human knowledge.  One is even free to let go of any concept of shape and look for a model that better fits what is observed.  FET is not free, it does not allow for the 'fact' that the earth is flat to be released.  It is an odd free speech dogma, a construct that says the individual is as good of an authority as any, and as such they are free to hold  "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma)".

The reason I provide a link to the definition of dogma is because I need the authoritative definition if I am to be understood.  Authority is not always a bad thing, and it is required for communication with human language.  People can and will abuse authority, but without it we are cavemen slugging it out in the muck.

Re: Why is a RET nonsense to your FEers

I am sure it is a mystery to most ERers ?

The only way to fully and objectively understand a system, is to be an observer outside of it. The problem with FET is that it is based on a subjective viewpoint. The earth's roundness is too big to be observed at ground level, or even miles high. But it HAS been observed at much higher altitudes, and in space.

100% of what we have observed when looking at the earth from afar, is a round earth theory.

It is not so much that RET does not make sense, it is that they start with the conclusion that the earth is flat and work backwards.  RET is either a misinterpretation of the flat earth, or it is a hoax that some cabal of global conspirators have created to trick people into thinking the earth is not flat.  To the FETer, evidence is something to explain.  True science makes predictions and creates experiments that can prove or disprove a hypothesis.  A big hole with FET is that every time they try to explain one observation, the explanation does not work with other observations.  At this point it is time to call in the conspiracy or just claim it is some 'bendy' effect of light or some such non sense.

Part of the issue is the nature of language.  Most words have multiple meanings and subtle differences in connotation.  Take the word free for example, Merriam Webster has 15 definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

So the term 'free thinker' can be interpreted many ways.  Free thinking in therms of FET amounts to 'worthless thinking'. 

The confusion comes in when they claim someone who accepts RET is not a free thinker.  Somehow there is a leap of reason that makes that claim self evident to the FETer.  But there is a great amount of freedom in RET, one is free to test any and all claims and if something is found to be incorrect and can be demonstrated, the results will be added to the sum of human knowledge.  One is even free to let go of any concept of shape and look for a model that better fits what is observed.  FET is not free, it does not allow for the 'fact' that the earth is flat to be released.  It is an odd free speech dogma, a construct that says the individual is as good of an authority as any, and as such they are free to hold  "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma)".

The reason I provide a link to the definition of dogma is because I need the authoritative definition if I am to be understood.  Authority is not always a bad thing, and it is required for communication with human language.  People can and will abuse authority, but without it we are cavemen slugging it out in the muck.

All of this. Brilliant post.