FE Theory Cannot Make Predictions

Flat Earth theory cannot make predictions or discoveries.  It can only extrapolate based on what data we already have. 
In that way, it will never be as valid as Heliocentric Theory. 

For example, let's look at Neptune.  Neptune was predicted mathematically from irregularities in the orbit of Uranus.  It was then discovered by telescope very near where it had been predicted to be. 

If the prevailing theory at the time was that the earth was flat, Neptune may never have been discovered.  The irregularities in the orbit of Uranus would have been chalked up to the way its particular stream of aether flowed. 

Since FET cannot make predictions, and would actually discourage predictions if accepted, can it even be called a theory?  At best, it can only be considered a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that. 
From Wikipedia:

According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

• Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
• Parsimony (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
• Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
• Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
• Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Well, does FET fit into this? 

• Testability
  Yes, but it's been proven to be false. 
• Parsimony
  Nope!  It exchanges the relative simplicity of gravity for overly complicated, poorly defined, unproven notion of aether.
• Scope
  Nope!  Besides the simple observation of the horizon appearing flat, it really doesn't even try to explain anything else. 
• Fruitfulness
  Nope!  See Neptune above. 
• Conservatism
  Mega-nope!  For it to even be considered, it would have to be proven that the Space Industry, Geodesy, Astronomy, Seismology, and the entire scientific community are entirely corrupt, and every single scientific law and theory revealed to be invalid. 

Well then.  I guess it's not even a scientific hypothesis.  So what is it?  Pseudoscience perhaps?  Really, it's just embarrassing. 

Flat Earth Faith (FEF). It's literally faith. Wanting to believe something so badly that you throw out all notions of rationality and critical thinking.

Yeah it's pretty much by definition a cult ideology.

There's plenty of research underpinning what drives movements like this and how it's all basically ideologically driven. It's significant that it's an ideological drive and when properly considered, explains everything behind why people buying in to the ideology refuse to accept evidence to the contrary of their beliefs.

It's functionally no different from someone that's chosen to believe in a religion, buys in to the dogma of that scripture, and patch-works their experience into that world view. It's how ideological thinking works. The Flat Earth thing is no different, it's just that, an ideology.

Flat Earth theory cannot make predictions or discoveries.  It can only extrapolate based on what data we already have. 
In that way, it will never be as valid as Heliocentric Theory. 

For example, let's look at Neptune.  Neptune was predicted mathematically from irregularities in the orbit of Uranus.  It was then discovered by telescope very near where it had been predicted to be. 

If the prevailing theory at the time was that the earth was flat, Neptune may never have been discovered.  The irregularities in the orbit of Uranus would have been chalked up to the way its particular stream of aether flowed. 

Since FET cannot make predictions, and would actually discourage predictions if accepted, can it even be called a theory?  At best, it can only be considered a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that. 
From Wikipedia:

Quote

According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

• Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
• Parsimony (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
• Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
• Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
• Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Well, does FET fit into this? 

• Testability
  Yes, but it's been proven to be false. 
• Parsimony
  Nope!  It exchanges the relative simplicity of gravity for overly complicated, poorly defined, unproven notion of aether.
• Scope
  Nope!  Besides the simple observation of the horizon appearing flat, it really doesn't even try to explain anything else. 
• Fruitfulness
  Nope!  See Neptune above. 
• Conservatism
  Mega-nope!  For it to even be considered, it would have to be proven that the Space Industry, Geodesy, Astronomy, Seismology, and the entire scientific community are entirely corrupt, and every single scientific law and theory revealed to be invalid. 

Well then.  I guess it's not even a scientific hypothesis.  So what is it?  Pseudoscience perhaps?  Really, it's just embarrassing.

Keep in mind the following definitions:

Fantasy:

• imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained
• imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings
• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
• imagination unrestricted by reality

Fiction:

• a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
• something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
• Fiction is defined as something that is not true
• is a deliberately fabricated account of something

Hypothesis:

• A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
• In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
• A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

Theory:

• Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
• In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence;
• In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations

For example, this is why Dual Earth THEORY (DET) is not remotely a theory. This is why I refer to it as DEF.

Hope this helps in your discussion of theories.

Bravo! Now you know why I refer to FET as FEF and DET as DEF (Fantasy/Fiction for me though). By calling them theories, the FEers are giving these models FAR more credence and respectability than they deserve - a deception.

At best, these would be useful for fantasy/fictional computer games, books and movies. Keep in mind, ANYTHING is possible in a fantasy. You don't need to prove ANYTHING - no evidence necessary. As a fantasy, FE is OK. It is like Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, etc.

What do you want for us to predict?  We can predict that there is ground beneath your feet, and celestial bodies above your head.  You make yourself sound dumb when you say that FET can not predict things. 

The thing is, you can't predict anything. Also, you just listed observations, not predictions.

To be fair, theoretically it can make predictions. It just doesn't.
There are several reasons for the doesn't: there's the lack of any mathematical description for any of it, and there's the fact we've done such a good job with making and confirming observations there really isn't all that much left to predict.
And to be fair, some models do make predictions. JRowe's the most explicit, then there are others that predict that the world has an edge, for example.

A better question might be how RET can make successful predictions, if it's foundations are lies.

To be fair, theoretically it can make predictions. It just doesn't.
There are several reasons for the doesn't: there's the lack of any mathematical description for any of it, and there's the fact we've done such a good job with making and confirming observations there really isn't all that much left to predict.
And to be fair, some models do make predictions. JRowe's the most explicit, then there are others that predict that the world has an edge, for example.

A better question might be how RET can make successful predictions, if it's foundations are lies.

The answer to that would be: if RET can make successful predictions then it's foundations are true. This is why your entire FE system falls apart, there is NO foundation outside of speculation. It completely denies corruption or distortion of the senses yet relies solely upon them. The reason we have the model we do, even though it doesn't always agree with your perception of the world, is because our senses are fundamentally flawed, inconsistent and easily manipulated, and are therefore incompetent and cannot correctly explainin things accurately. That is exactly why science and math came about. They are ways of explaining the world around us without the biased information received and processed by the human brain. So to develop an entire system based upon this makes the system compatible ONLY with observations, and then only on specific scales under specific conditions.

The answer to that would be: if RET can make successful predictions then it's foundations are true. This is why your entire FE system falls apart, there is NO foundation outside of speculation.

It's not 'my' FE system, I'm a REer, I just provide the obvious FE answers every now and again to save time. That would be why I gave an RE argument to close out the post.

Quote from: Juicyblunts2016 on March 20, 2016, 11:57:02 AM

The answer to that would be: if RET can make successful predictions then it's foundations are true. This is why your entire FE system falls apart, there is NO foundation outside of speculation.

It's not 'my' FE system, I'm a REer, I just provide the obvious FE answers every now and again to save time. That would be why I gave an RE argument to close out the post.

I did misunderstand your point of view and for that I feel pretty dumb, mainly because I had read your post at least 3 times before i put out my 2 bits lol. I can see the perspective now but could you elaborate on exactly what kind of predictions can be made with FE? Because the "edge of the world" prediction is more of a consequence really is it not? I ask because as far as I have come to understand, these FE hypothesis all seem to really rely on vagueness or the absence of explanation.  That should imply that the variables used to form any sort of prediction would also be very vague and so one can not expect an accurate prediction to be made based on those scanty detailed controls.

Flat Earth Faith (FEF). It's literally faith. Wanting to believe something so badly that you throw out all notions of rationality and critical thinking.

Winner winner, chicken dinner! You nailed it. What's fascinating is that some of them clearly have some aptitude and unwavering in their insanity. I am perplexed as to what took them over the top.  This is a conspiracy that I don't even understand the purpose of let alone how this knowledge will shed light on one's life.  Ok, so the earth is flat; now what?  It's almost as if they have some genetic defect or something and their views can't be undone...

I did misunderstand your point of view and for that I feel pretty dumb, mainly because I had read your post at least 3 times before i put out my 2 bits lol. I can see the perspective now but could you elaborate on exactly what kind of predictions can be made with FE? Because the "edge of the world" prediction is more of a consequence really is it not? I ask because as far as I have come to understand, these FE hypothesis all seem to really rely on vagueness or the absence of explanation.  That should imply that the variables used to form any sort of prediction would also be very vague and so one can not expect an accurate prediction to be made based on those scanty detailed controls.

Predictions are consequences. A prediction is just the consequence of what a model states: for example, a lot of the theory of relativity is just a consequence of the maths found by someone sitting down and working out how the speed of light would be a speed limit. A natural consequence, once you play around with all the figures, is length contraction, time dilation... But of course, that's a prediction as well.
A lot of FEers do tend to be somewhat vague, but there's variation. Some don't explain anything, some do provide detailed explanations but only of some aspects, some genuinely make an effort (JRowe again: his theory is... unique, but it gets points for addressing certain objections, and making actual predictions). No maths of course, usually: there have been a few attempts to provide it, but none really pan out. (One person provided a formula whose units were impossible, one provided a wave equation that would be PhD level plus to try and analyse).
It's not really fair to paint all FEers with the same brush. Some are definitely better than others.

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 12:12:40 PM

Quote from: Juicyblunts2016 on March 20, 2016, 11:57:02 AM

The answer to that would be: if RET can make successful predictions then it's foundations are true. This is why your entire FE system falls apart, there is NO foundation outside of speculation.

It's not 'my' FE system, I'm a REer, I just provide the obvious FE answers every now and again to save time. That would be why I gave an RE argument to close out the post.

I did misunderstand your point of view and for that I feel pretty dumb, mainly because I had read your post at least 3 times before i put out my 2 bits lol. I can see the perspective now but could you elaborate on exactly what kind of predictions can be made with FE? Because the "edge of the world" prediction is more of a consequence really is it not? I ask because as far as I have come to understand, these FE hypothesis all seem to really rely on vagueness or the absence of explanation.  That should imply that the variables used to form any sort of prediction would also be very vague and so one can not expect an accurate prediction to be made based on those scanty detailed controls.

Although variables will be vague, shapes have definite properties. Look at the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn here: (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66202.msg1767734#msg1767734).

If the Earth his flat, they can not be the same length (leaving Dual Earth Fantasy out of it). The prediction therefore is that depending on whether the center of the FE is the N.Pole or S.Pole, one Tropic will be longer than the other and the Sun traveling above it will take different amounts of time - upwards of twice as long. This then can be observed, measured and verified/falsified. It does not even need to be exact, but it should be noticeable. Vagueness is OK. It is "proof of concept" type of thing based on the shape of a disk.

Certainly our model predicts when the sun will appear and when it will disappear.
Take Lunar eclipse. teFirst let me  staThere is no evidence that the shadow seen comes from the earth- rather it could come from any celestial body that moves between the earth and moon as it rotates

The Greek natural philosophers predicted Lunar Eclipses very easily without resorting to models relying on the magic of gravity at nd a sun centered universe. How was this possible? Of course by simply recording the patterns of such on charts and tables and then noting the regularity of such occurrences. By studying these patterns they, and we, can predict an eclipse and its aspects.

All occurring phenomena including the path of moving celestial bodies, including transit of planets can be shown to follow patterns.

From the Wiki on this subject, which apparently most hello centrists cannot be bothered to consult says the following

"Actually, NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how &  why "modern theorist" predict the lunar eclipse today.

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

I find it laughable that hello-centrist send these "large argument" balloons up without taking the time to read and understand the theory of the flat earth.  Rather than doing this- read, understand (which means taking time) and then debate particular aspects of the theory.

Certainly our model predicts when the sun will appear and when it will disappear.

I have yet to see a convincing explanation as to how the sun would even set on a flat earth that does no invoke extreme levels of refraction from the supposed "aether". Anyway, the round earth or flat earth models are not necessary to make these predictions.

Take Lunar eclipse. teFirst let me  staThere is no evidence that the shadow seen comes from the earth- rather it could come from any celestial body that moves between the earth and moon as it rotates

HAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHA. SERIOUSLY? AN UNDETECTED CELESTIAL OBJECT THE APPARENT SIZE OF THE MOON WITH AN ATMOSPHERE? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There's no way no one would have noticed a celestial object of that apparent size in the past thousands of years of astronomical observations.

Not only that, lunar eclipses wouldn't really work with the FE model. There is no atmosphere for the sun's light to pass through, so the moon would not appear red.

The Greek natural philosophers predicted Lunar Eclipses very easily without resorting to models relying on the magic of gravity at nd a sun centered universe. How was this possible? Of course by simply recording the patterns of such on charts and tables and then noting the regularity of such occurrences. By studying these patterns they, and we, can predict an eclipse and its aspects.

Again, neither the flat nor round earth models are necessary for this.

All occurring phenomena including the path of moving celestial bodies, including transit of planets can be shown to follow patterns.

From the Wiki on this subject, which apparently most hello centrists cannot be bothered to consult says the following

The Wiki is not terribly well made with quite a bit of information missing on several subjects *cough* aether *cough* and many people *cough* jroa *cough* don't accept what is in the Wiki and have their own ideas. We often like to get the information from people first hand, and they can send us to a wiki page if they believe it satisfactorily explains their position.

"Actually, NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how &  why "modern theorist" predict the lunar eclipse today.

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

Again, completely independent from the flat earth theory. In any case, these charts have probably been verified with mathematical models of a heliocentric solar system.

I find it laughable that hello-centrist send these "large argument" balloons up without taking the time to read and understand the theory of the flat earth.  Rather than doing this- read, understand (which means taking time) and then debate particular aspects of the theory.

There are no "large argument balloons" anywhere on this thread. The argument here is that FET is not even a theory as it does not match the criterion for a scientific theory nor provide any useful predictions. Often, we do not understand FET fully because it is never explained in a complete and satisfactorily way, and changes continually to provide ad-hoc solutions.

A better question might be how RET can make successful predictions, if it's foundations are lies.

It couldn’t. But I can use a round Earth model to predict the Sunrise/Sunset/Moonrise/Moonset/ and apparent percentage Moon Illumination for any given location on a spherical Earth. Can any flat Earth model provide a mechanism to achieve that?
Those would be just a few of many examples that are meant by “Anything”.

From the Wiki on this subject, which apparently most hello centrists cannot be bothered to consult says the following

"Actually, NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how &  why "modern theorist" predict the lunar eclipse today.

Except the RE model can be used to explain and predict said behaviour. In practise however, it's pretty clearly overkill to calculate the relative motion of three objects orbiting each other, to gauge when they'd be aligned (which is itself not the easiest thing to figure out).
So, yes, we use the simpler methods to predict when eclipses occur because why overcomplicate things? That doesn't change the fact RET works to explain the motion. The shadow object FE explanation hardly works simply because we'd be able to notice an object large enough to blot out that much of the moon: instead, it seems to very clearly be a shadow.