A New Scientist on the Forum

Hello!

My name's Claire, I believe the world is flat, and my concern is on working out how. RE science has had many centuries to determine a model, and explain away observations. I doubt I can manage the same level of depth in the limited time that I have, but I hope to be able to at least make a start.

If I'm wrong, we'll find out together. I hope you will be willing to at least discuss with respect, however. You may not believe that the world is flat, but I hope you may be able to objectively analyze which theories work, and which fail.

Hello!

My name's Claire, I believe the world is flat, and my concern is on working out how. RE science has had many centuries to determine a model, and explain away observations.

Hi Claire, welcome to the site.  Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?

Remember: in order for you to be a scientist you must do science and all science involves use of the scientific method which requires making predictions and doing experiments.  If you do this it will be the first science in favor of flat Earth ever and it will convert many to the flat Earth cause including myself.

Remember that science is not about proving yourself right, it's about becoming right.

Hi Claire, welcome to the site.  Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?

Hi Markjo, thank you for the welcome.
'Explained away' may have been too much of an inflammatory term. My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed. Whether or not they're relying on an accurate basis aside, this puts any competing theory at a distinct disadvantage.
I will get onto pointing out what I find to be specific problems with aspects of scientific theory in due course: I don't think this thread is the place.

Remember: in order for you to be a scientist you must do science and all science involves use of the scientific method which requires making predictions and doing experiments.

Thank you for the reminder. I am aware of that, though it should be acknowledged that a matter like the shape of the Earth is somewhat of a special case. Experiments are never a first step in science: as you say, it is to compose a hypothesis which attempts to explain already known facts. This is my initial goal, and talk of experiments will be highly premature. First an accurate model must be hypthesized: then examined to determine where it is at odds with RET.
Then the real challenge arises. Round Earth Theory is treated as a default, so if an alternative theory offers a better or more satisfying answer (such as if it is able to explain why mass bends spacetime in a way that directly implies the Earth is flat), logically that should make the alternative more tenable, but in practise it won't because if theories explain equal amounts, you treat the standard as preferrable, even if it is needlessly complex. However, two theories explaining equal amounts is unlikely.
It may be possible to find some niche experiment that has yet to have been performed in any way, but to both find and perform such an experiment is going to be a challenge. This is one of the disadvantages I mentioned, of timescale. Round Earth Theory is treated as a default, and has answers for most questions that people think to ask.
Realistically, what should be needed is for an alternative model to answer all those questions to an equal or better standard. A new experiment would certainly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is a very tall order, irrespective of which model is true.

Remember that science is not about proving yourself right, it's about becoming right.

Likewise. Thank you.

I am a round earther but as long as you are being scientific about it you have my full cooperation.  Consider me a peer in the peer review process and I can help you come up with round Earth hypothesises.

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2015, 10:04:00 AM

Hi Claire, welcome to the site.  Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?

Hi Markjo, thank you for the welcome.
'Explained away' may have been too much of an inflammatory term. My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed. Whether or not they're relying on an accurate basis aside, this puts any competing theory at a distinct disadvantage.

Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round.  Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small. 

Without trying to get into too much of debate here, just keep in mind that if you want to show that FET is a better theory than RET, then you need to show that FET explains observations better than RET does.  I would suggest starting with basic "look out your window" type observations at first.  Things like the rising and setting of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies. 

Good luck with your research.

Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round.  Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small. 

True, but that was also before technology and research were accessible.
The problem is, science is based on what comes before. All there needed to be was one error then, and everything would fall apart.

Without trying to get into too much of debate here, just keep in mind that if you want to show that FET is a better theory than RET, then you need to show that FET explains observations better than RET does.  I would suggest starting with basic "look out your window" type observations at first.  Things like the rising and setting of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies. 

Good luck with your research.

Thank you.
Basic observations are, however, a tricky start. Often they are caused by consequences of more major aspects.
The first thing I want to determine is what keeps us on the Earth's surface. I favor the idea of air pressure, though I may be wrong. That mechanism may be more widely applicable.

I believe the world is flat.

Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 02, 2015, 05:40:52 AM

I believe the world is flat.

Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.

Neither of those are questions to ask before anything else. My model is not yet complete and I won't pretend otherwise.
My current goals are to determine the most likely way by which we stay on the world's surface, and to come up with a working map. With a map, I can trace out the movements of stars: which may show a clearer answer. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are. If there is any significance of them with respect to, for example, the Coriolis effect or jet streams, then there may prove to be a simple answer. The point is, such questions can't be answered until I have more knowledge.
As for sunsets, what is the Sun? That too must be arrived at. It seems likely to be a mere property of light, however. (Light does not seem entirely well-defined or understood, I'm made a thread on the topic in SaAS).

You do not have observational evidence against flatness: you have evidence against several specific models. I do not yet have a model, so there is as of yet no way for it to be contradicted; there is also, certainly, no way for me to argue for a Flat Earth, only against a round one.

When I have a working map and have arrived at functioning mechanisms, then I will be more than happy to answer your questions. I require a framework first, however.

(For a progress report: I favor the dome model, but that is certainly very tenuous).

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2015, 12:50:23 PM

Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round.  Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small. 

True, but that was also before technology and research were accessible.
The problem is, science is based on what comes before. All there needed to be was one error then, and everything would fall apart.

That's true, self-consistency is very important to a theory.  As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.

As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.

That does depend. Self-checking can take place: or sometimes people simply don't question the foundations of what they work on, assuming their results are flawed or posing a new explanation. Dark matter is a cliche example: maybe it does exist, maybe it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial basis for its existence was a refusal to question a formula on gravity.
The problem is that scientists are typically human: no one wants to be the first to come forth and announce that they've all been wasting their time. The prospect is terrifying. Maybe the community would welcome and applaud them: or maybe they'd be laughed out on principle. One option might be more likely than the other, but humans get scared. it's what we do. There's no way to know what results or discoveries weren't made public.
Or a problem is found, and brushed aside: no one realized the significance.

Science isn't perfect, unfortunately.

Dark energy was mathematically predicted by Einstean before it was experimentally measured and dark matter can be located and mapped out using it's gravity.  They are not just explanations to fill holes.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 02, 2015, 05:40:52 AM

I believe the world is flat.

Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.

BTW .Things like the horizon and the distance to the horizon, too.

Dark energy was mathematically predicted by Einstean before it was experimentally measured and dark matter can be located and mapped out using it's gravity.  They are not just explanations to fill holes.

Possibly true, but I did specify 'initially'.

BTW .Things like the horizon and the distance to the horizon, too.

I haven't seen too convincing a point on the horizon, often arguments made with it stem from not taking into account geographical features. Even so, my response is the same: those questions are not the first things to ask. When I have more of a model, then it will be possible to answer your questions. At this point, such things are premature.

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2015, 10:47:00 AM

As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.

That does depend. Self-checking can take place: or sometimes people simply don't question the foundations of what they work on, assuming their results are flawed or posing a new explanation. Dark matter is a cliche example: maybe it does exist, maybe it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial basis for its existence was a refusal to question a formula on gravity.
The problem is that scientists are typically human: no one wants to be the first to come forth and announce that they've all been wasting their time. The prospect is terrifying. Maybe the community would welcome and applaud them: or maybe they'd be laughed out on principle.

On the contrary, there are a good number of young and hungry scientists out there who would love nothing more than to turn the current scientific establishment on its ear.  Imagine the fame and glory to be had by being the one to definitively prove Einstein or Newton wrong.  However, you are correct in that well entrenched paradigms can be hard to shift, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing either.  Even if new theories do prove to be better than the old, they still should be subjected to intense scrutiny.  Perhaps that why even today scientists are still thinking up new ways to put Einstein's theories to the test.

My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed.

The Greeks, being unbiased, had lots of time to explain away many different models.

The modern Europeans, being biased towards whatever they interpreted the Bible to say, had centuries to work on a flat earth model.

Copernicus had no more time than the thousands of people against him.

Kepler had no more time than all the other Europeans.

Richard Proctor had no more time than Samuel Rowbotham.

What have the flat-earthers been doing with all the time they've always had??'?

Out of curiosity, why is it you believe the Earth is flat? Given that you aren't basing your beliefs on a pre-existing model, I assume it stems from personal observations conflicting with what science tells us? I'm only asking because you haven't explained the basis for your beliefs, which most people tend to do right off the bat.

I applaud you for seeking to create your own model - that's skepticism at its sharpest and finest. Though it does implore an almost incredible distrust in all of society, similar societal stragglers like Galileo ended up changing the world. That being said, we live in an age now where skepticism is encouraged, and where our beliefs are founded on strong scientific theories. If you believe none of those to be true, then I'm sure you'll still agree that the supposed "ruse" that is the Round Earth is exponentially more reinforced and intellectual in its design (not to mention entirely coherent) than Church-enforced Dark Age thought, and so in order to come up with a more convincing theory, you may have to work an exponential amount harder than our own pioneers.

What have the flat-earthers been doing with all the time they've always had??'?

Context: one hundred years, thousands of years ago, offers far less opportunity for scientific development than a hundred years closer to the present. Technology, publishing, record-keeping... We've lost most of our records from that long ago; for all we know there was a perfect FE model, it just got burned with Alexandria, or wiped away with the majority of records.
In addition, the scientific method in a meaningful form is a comparatively recent invention. The idea of a round Earth is also ancient, but it was still thousands of years before gravity was formalized.

Out of curiosity, why is it you believe the Earth is flat? Given that you aren't basing your beliefs on a pre-existing model, I assume it stems from personal observations conflicting with what science tells us? I'm only asking because you haven't explained the basis for your beliefs, which most people tend to do right off the bat.

Bits and pieces. I'm going to make posts now and again about the apparent flaws I've found: there's no point trying to debate them all right in my introductory thread.
The primary reason is that I know science is not perfectly accurate. Every scientist admits that: I just want to ensure early mistakes weren't made. That would taint everything that comes since.

 There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.

Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 02, 2015, 03:45:02 PM

 There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.

Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.

Unprovable. Just because only one solution is known does not mean only one solution exists.
For example, if there is an as yet unknown law governing light (not saying this is the case: this is a hypothetical demonstration) it would certainly be possible for the starlight we see to behave oddly: and perhaps different to the stars themselves.
Science doesn't deal in such absolutes as you seem to be using.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 06, 2015, 05:43:24 PM

Quote from: FEScientist on September 02, 2015, 03:45:02 PM

 There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.

Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.

Unprovable. Just because only one solution is known does not mean only one solution exists.
For example, if there is an as yet unknown law governing light (not saying this is the case: this is a hypothetical demonstration) it would certainly be possible for the starlight we see to behave oddly: and perhaps different to the stars themselves.
Science doesn't deal in such absolutes as you seem to be using.

Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.
If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work. Therefore, the possibility that light merely simulates the appearance of what we see due to odd physics has already been disproved by the millions of daily usages of it which work as expected, and so we're given surety that our mathematical model is reliable. Experimental science cannot 100% prove - but it can disprove very very easily.
Don't try and out-science me, fancy pants. The League of Scientific Gentlemen has dealt with worse than you in its time.

Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.

Pure mathematics certainly can make proofs easier, but it is not always the case that absolute proof is easily found or used.
Have you heard of the four colour theorem? It's an interesting statement; that any planar graph (such as regions on a map) can be coloured with no more then four colours, such that any two regions with any part of a line in common are two different shades. It was believed that Kempe had proven it for years, and commonly stated as fact. However, a fundamental error was exposed a while later: Kempe's proof didn't cover one particular case, even though people believed it had.
Even maths is subject to the foibles of human error. The theorem was only proven a matter of decades ago, via computer and brute force, and multiple people still questioned it as a proof as no one could actually read through the pages and pages of print-out.
For a proof to hold, you must cover every eventuality. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this.

If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work.

Untrue. Newton and Hawking and quantum theory: particles don't behave exactly as Newton predicted, but Newton is still perfectly useful. A theory can be flawed when applied to a particular circumstance, or if particular assumptions are made. this does not mean what we already know about said theory is wrong.

If you are really a scientist questioning the very fundamentals then why come here? If light works are expected fet is disproved in a few minutes.

If you are stating that you dont believe that the fundamentals are correct, then you need to start finding proof that invalidates existing proofs.
You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.

all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.

P.S. Have you published or been part of published work?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 08, 2015, 03:44:49 PM

Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.

Pure mathematics certainly can make proofs easier, but it is not always the case that absolute proof is easily found or used.
Have you heard of the four colour theorem? It's an interesting statement; that any planar graph (such as regions on a map) can be coloured with no more then four colours, such that any two regions with any part of a line in common are two different shades. It was believed that Kempe had proven it for years, and commonly stated as fact. However, a fundamental error was exposed a while later: Kempe's proof didn't cover one particular case, even though people believed it had.
Even maths is subject to the foibles of human error. The theorem was only proven a matter of decades ago, via computer and brute force, and multiple people still questioned it as a proof as no one could actually read through the pages and pages of print-out.
For a proof to hold, you must cover every eventuality. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this.

Quote

If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work.

Untrue. Newton and Hawking and quantum theory: particles don't behave exactly as Newton predicted, but Newton is still perfectly useful. A theory can be flawed when applied to a particular circumstance, or if particular assumptions are made. this does not mean what we already know about said theory is wrong.

To address your first point: it does not follow that because one mathematical proof was found to be incorrect, that all others are suspect. In the example you cite, what was mistaken for a mathematical proof, was not one.
Let me make it even simpler for you... rotation around two separate centres on the same plane in different directionsrequires any two points on the rotating objects to vary in distance from each other. If that does not happen, the objects are not both on the same plane and rotating in opposite directions. It's like saying that while I drive my car to the next town over, I therefore cannot also be sitting in it on my driveway. For any condition to be, other conditions have to not be.
To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected. If it behaves like that, it cannot also behave "not like that" which is the only way your alternative idea would work. Same principle as above.
Your babble about quantum theory is just meaningless noise and provides no contradiction. You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.

If you are really a scientist questioning the very fundamentals then why come here? If light works are expected fet is disproved in a few minutes.

If you are stating that you dont believe that the fundamentals are correct, then you need to start finding proof that invalidates existing proofs.

Where else would you suggest I go to study FE?

You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.

Untrue. Science cannot be performed unless a hypothesis is chosen: my hypothesis is that the Earth is flat, and so I seek to test this by determining what would be true if this were the case, and determining how I might experiment. The zetetic method would not require a hypothesis, but that is very limited in application; unless you know what you're testing, how can you reach any meaningful conclusion?
If the world is flat, then A, B and C.
A, B and C could be laws that cannot hold, or that are mistaken, or observations that would be made. One needs to know what these are in order to test it: in order to arrive at a hypothesis to verify or flasify, I must see what would follow from a flat Earth. I'm not sure what part of this you are claiming is unscientific.

all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.

Would you care to share how? Bold claims mean nothing without explanation.

P.S. Have you published or been part of published work?

Not yet, though I have studied with several academics, and discussed (purely as a hypothetical) with them.

it does not follow that because one mathematical proof was found to be incorrect, that all others are suspect.

This was not what I said. I said simply that mathematical proofs are not inherently accurate, just because they are held to be so: this directly contradicted your claim, and so was all I needed to do. Something mistaken for a mathematical proof, proves that just because something is believed to be a proof, does not mean it is. You cannot claim exception for the results you would like to defend: they may well be accurate, but that should not be assumed.

Let me make it even simpler for you... rotation around two separate centres on the same plane in different directionsrequires any two points on the rotating objects to vary in distance from each other. If that does not happen, the objects are not both on the same plane and rotating in opposite directions.

The centres may not be on the same plane: and of course we enter into the difference between the objects themselves, and the observations of said objects. The same problem as ever. In addition, your psoed question still remains ill-defined without a FE map to refer to.

To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected.

On those specific scales, in that specific context. Experiments are not universal: they are limited by the area and means accessible to the scientists. I am not sure how those experiments would claim to show this, however: if a laser has been used over a long distance to show that light always moves in a straight line, this either covers what is still a tiny distance on the relevant scales, or failed to take into account the curvature of the Earth (and even so there is no firm gauge on how much was dispersed simply by interference, and how much was drawn away). The fact is, you are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have.

You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.

This is why I offered an explanation: a theory can be accurate sometimes, and inaccurate others. You cannot simply assume the rules you hold to are universal when there has been no testing on the relevant level or scales.

You seem to get quite irate at discussion here, judging by your tone and phrasing. You might want to consider taking a break; I'm not sure why you would come somewhere which apparently only annoys you. I am here to discuss, not get into arguments.

mathematical proofs are not inherently accurate, just because they are held to be so.

Actually, they can be. The pole rotation idea can be proven by a proof by contraposition. Perhaps you should look it up. Just like a triangle cannot be a square, a circle cannot be a rectangle, objects moving relative to each other (stars in every multiple axis of rotation model for FE) cannot not be moving relative to each other (stars in round & toroidal earth scenarios).

Quote

To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected.

On those specific scales, in that specific context. Experiments are not universal: they are limited by the area and means accessible to the scientists. I am not sure how those experiments would claim to show this, however: if a laser has been used over a long distance to show that light always moves in a straight line, this either covers what is still a tiny distance on the relevant scales, or failed to take into account the curvature of the Earth (and even so there is no firm gauge on how much was dispersed simply by interference, and how much was drawn away). The fact is, you are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have.

So what you're saying is that after testing literally hundreds of thousands of ways to use electromagnetic radiation, in distances ranging from light years to nanometres, we still might find a scenario involving a distance between these two extremes, in which light behaves completely differently in our daily observations, yet we have somehow been unable to detect this. Technically, we can't disprove that idea - the same way as we can't disprove Russell's Teapot. Perhaps you should look that up too. There is a line between theoretically possible and actually possible. Read about the uncertainty principle and then read about the Infinite Improbability Drive to learn where that line is.

Quote

You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.

This is why I offered an explanation: a theory can be accurate sometimes, and inaccurate others. You cannot simply assume the rules you hold to are universal when there has been no testing on the relevant level or scales.

No testing? Don't make me laugh. Our everyday uses of EM radiation test it extremely thoroughly.

You seem to get quite irate at discussion here, judging by your tone and phrasing. You might want to consider taking a break; I'm not sure why you would come somewhere which apparently only annoys you. I am here to discuss, not get into arguments.

Now you're sounding like your own alt. Perhaps you should take a break, or just stick to one character.

Quote

You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.

Untrue. Science cannot be performed unless a hypothesis is chosen: my hypothesis is that the Earth is flat, and so I seek to test this by determining what would be true if this were the case, and determining how I might experiment. The zetetic method would not require a hypothesis, but that is very limited in application; unless you know what you're testing, how can you reach any meaningful conclusion?
If the world is flat, then A, B and C.
A, B and C could be laws that cannot hold, or that are mistaken, or observations that would be made. One needs to know what these are in order to test it: in order to arrive at a hypothesis to verify or flasify, I must see what would follow from a flat Earth. I'm not sure what part of this you are claiming is unscientific.

Perhaps, but calling a belief a hypothesis doesn't make it any more or less true.

Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.

Quote

all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.

Would you care to share how? Bold claims mean nothing without explanation.

If you have not been able to figure this out then I am not sure you really are qualified to tackle the question of a round earth. High school geometry is all that is required.

To debunk the round earth you need to debunk all of known physics and math, start with light.

Actually, they can be. The pole rotation idea can be proven by a proof by contraposition. Perhaps you should look it up. Just like a triangle cannot be a square, a circle cannot be a rectangle, objects moving relative to each other (stars in every multiple axis of rotation model for FE) cannot not be moving relative to each other (stars in round & toroidal earth scenarios).

I am aware of the means of proof. the means are not what I am questioning; your implications are what I am questioning. Yes, circumpolar star movements may be explained by a RE. Yes, it is trickier to explain them on the classical plane FE. It does not follow that it is impossible to explain them on a FE, if you reject any possible alteration or refinement to existing laws.

So what you're saying is that after testing literally hundreds of thousands of ways to use electromagnetic radiation, in distances ranging from light years to nanometres, we still might find a scenario involving a distance between these two extremes, in which light behaves completely differently in our daily observations, yet we have somehow been unable to detect this.

I would be very interested in hearing what use of electromagnetic radiation spanning light years you believe is a daily observation. The fact is, on those scales, much of what we go on is the assumption that light behaves as it does. Further the majority of things on those scales are precisely the things I'm questioning: starlight and sunlight which would imply a RE if light behaved according to the ununified RE model.
You cannot repeatedly appeal to uses or experiments and then fail to give any examples of them.

Perhaps you should look that up too.

I am aware of all you refer to. Please stop with the insulting tone in lieu of justification. If you are not willing to discuss, do not discuss.

No testing? Don't make me laugh. Our everyday uses of EM radiation test it extremely thoroughly.

"on the relevant level or scales."

Now you're sounding like your own alt. Perhaps you should take a break, or just stick to one character.

I have been accused of this before. Whose alt do you believe I am?
People speak differently. I try to keep my temper sometimes, but when I am faced with self-righteous insults, clear irritation, with a lack of any justification or explanation, it can be very hard.

You have made many claims,a nd you insult my knowledge despite the fact I am fully aware of what you refer to. You offer no justification of any of your crucial claims, and offer nothing
except unjustified rejection of my claims. I am here to discuss. Discussion requires back-and-forth, not mere repitition of the same things.

Perhaps, but calling a belief a hypothesis doesn't make it any more or less true.

Certainly. Truth is determined by experiment, and experiment cannot be arrived at before a hypothesis however.

Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.

I was speaking generally. the post I believe you're referring to, however, were simple examples of how the RE model is incomplete: perhaps permanently so. It is only a reason to seek out an alternative.
Many of those facts did relate to the shape of the Earth, if indirectly. For example, if the world is flat, the Solar system as you know it would be very different: Eratosthenes would have proven the Sun is much closer to the Earth's surface, for one. The implications are not direct, but there are certainly some.

If you have not been able to figure this out then I am not sure you really are qualified to tackle the question of a round earth. High school geometry is all that is required.

So you claim. You have repeated the claim, you have not done as I asked and provided the explanation.
I can think of multiple attempted ways to disprove a FE, but none are universal; there is always a model of a FE where the argument does not stand. This is why I asked for the specific argument Neil believed was so devastating.

To debunk the round earth you need to debunk all of known physics and math, start with light.

There is a difference between debunking and refinement. I seek only to refine; a simple addition to the behavior of the fundamental forces (theoretically justified through unification) explains the Sun, daylight at the poles, and possibly the stars, as well as the Allais effect, without contradicting any existing knowledge or observations. Pure maths does not need any alteration; the application is the question. There is only a contradiction if you assume we know everything about everything: no one claims that, so it is wholly possible there is something we are not taking into account.
Science is not about debunking: it is about adding to knowledge.

There is a difference between debunking and refinement. I seek only to refine; a simple addition to the behavior of the fundamental forces (theoretically justified through unification) explains the Sun, daylight at the poles, and possibly the stars, as well as the Allais effect, without contradicting any existing knowledge or observations. Pure maths does not need any alteration; the application is the question. There is only a contradiction if you assume we know everything about everything: no one claims that, so it is wholly possible there is something we are not taking into account.
Science is not about debunking: it is about adding to knowledge.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for questioning "common knowledge" and current science, FET does not however question science, it turns its back to it altogether.
If what you want to do is refine the known properties of light, then great, that is one thing.
Going on to say that light may be slightly different, therefore the world could be flat is not doing science. You have to fundamentally change everything to make a flat world work.

I believe you said that you are trying to make a FE map. Just getting a FE map to fit known observations would be a massive accomplishment. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way you could make a FE map work. If you finish your map, I would love to have a look.

I wish you luck