Way too many assumptions with Flat Earth

So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

You are mixing up the assumptions! You aren't talking about a single hypothesis, except the earth is flat. That is the starting hypothesis, but the rest are parts of different theories of flatness.

"Gravity" in the Universal Accelerator theory is caused by the constant upward acceleration of the earth, which is a disk. In this theory gravity, as a force, does not exist.

Some FE are creationists, but many are not. Obviously creationists believe the earth was created by a creator. Even RE creationists believe this.

Infinite plane theory is completely different from UA theory. Search the forum for "infinite plane" there are many threads about it.

The Ice Wall is part of the UA theory. If it exists, it would have to be huge, and probably impossible to reach.

People are usually surprised that there are so many different ways of thinking about FE. You are used to the way mainstream science works, where there is broad consensus on things and outside the box thinking is squashed.

I concede the creationist point, from what I had seen most were creationists but I will take your word that there are some who aren't.

My major point was that there multiple untested aspects in order to support these theories, in comparison to the model of a round earth, which has been around for thousands of years and has been tested and supported by many different experiments.

Mainstream science does not always squash new ideas, perfect example being in genetics. Lamarck's theory of acquired traits being inherited by offspring was accepted (without experimentation or evidence granted) but after Darwin and Mendell's work, Lamarckian Inheritance was largely rendered obsolete, with a few possible exceptions in epigenetics. In this case, the more valid theory was supported, while the widely accepted theory was superseded.

You forget the biggest assumption: that all the governments, organizations, scientifics, companies and small busineses lie to us when they say the earth is not flat.

I'm a creationist and I don't believe in flat earth. It's not supported by scripture and its unscientific. Just saying that to clarify that not all creationists believe in flat earth. In fact only a small fraction believe in it.

Lamarck's theory of acquired traits being inherited by offspring was accepted (without experimentation or evidence granted) but after Darwin and Mendell's work, Lamarckian Inheritance was largely rendered obsolete, with a few possible exceptions in epigenetics. In this case, the more valid theory was supported, while the widely accepted theory was superseded.

Lamarckism was never accepted by a great number of scientists. Lamarck's theory in fact was subject to ridicule from the day he published it. One reason was, because it was not and never became supported by experimental evidence. Darwin, by the way, was a Lamarckist.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 27, 2016, 12:18:30 PM

Lamarck's theory of acquired traits being inherited by offspring was accepted (without experimentation or evidence granted) but after Darwin and Mendell's work, Lamarckian Inheritance was largely rendered obsolete, with a few possible exceptions in epigenetics. In this case, the more valid theory was supported, while the widely accepted theory was superseded.

Lamarckism was never accepted by a great number of scientists. Lamarck's theory in fact was subject to ridicule from the day he published it. One reason was, because it was not and never became supported by experimental evidence. Darwin, by the way, was a Lamarckist.

I agree with all you say, except for "Darwin, by the way, was a Lamarckist.".

I won't claim be an expert or even believe completely in either, but Darwinism and Lamarkism differ in at least one very important aspect.

What Lamarck Believed
Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 180: If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring.

What Darwin Believed
Darwin believed that the desires of animals have nothing to do with how they evolve, and that changes in an organism during its life do not affect the evolution of the species. He said that organisms, even of the same species, are all different and that those which happen to have variations that help them to survive in their environments survive and have more offspring. The offspring are born with their parents' helpful traits, and as they reproduce, individuals with that trait make up more of the population.

both from Lamarck vs. Darwin.
Within species, Darwinism is simply a fact with many clearly observable examples from bacteria and moths to fish and birds. As far as I can see there is nothing unscriptural in this.

But Darwinism goes much further than this and asserts that these small, within species, changes leads to new species.

So Lamarkism and Darwinism are certainly different, but I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable in this than I to go further.

So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

It's all assumptions until concrete proof can be had. The real issue is in being allowed to show what concrete proof is and having it accepted.
An instance is the Bedford level experiment. It should constitute concrete proof but it's not allowed. Why?
The answer is simple. Because mainstream supposed science does not allow this type of evidence. It's frowned upon and people are ridiculed by the brainwashed masses, instigated by those higher up.

The  supposed globe is saturated with assumptions, lies and total areas of misinformation/disinformation, yet it's allowed into mainstream as a theory that is known as scientifically correct, until something in time scuppers it.
The beauty about the "scientific THEORY"  is, they can peddle it as a truth whilst having the word as a contingency word of a guess if the shit hits the fan.

All flat Earth/alternate theorists/hypothesisers/assumers, etc, have is their own logical free thinking minds that will never be accepted as a thought if it goes against the preferred scientific fantasy/fiction.

The real truth about it all is, the entire make up of the entire world and whatever is beyond, is assumptions for anyone.
The key to gaining some semblance of understanding of a potential make up of Earth and beyond, is to make many assumptions and see which one's can actually make a fist of a potential reality and which one's can be discarded based on complete nonsense.

The globe model is one that I can cheerfully and easily discard as being a sci-fi set up, which includes a lot of utter gunk about supposed amazing machines that can weigh up to 3000 tonnes, being sent into the sky with men sitting atop.
You know, stuff like that. Clear and utter crap that only requires a leisurely argument about, against those that have been brainwashed so severely that they absolutely refuse to take a peak outside the box, never mind take a tentative step out of it.

Globalists assume flat/alternate Earth theorists are stark raving mad. Tin foil hat wearing idiots. Mainstream media provided the channel for words like these to be used  by those who want to keep bull crap hidden by smothering it with cream and strawberries so the gullible will ravenously gobble it all up and never pay much attention to the shitty aftertaste.

The only way to pick the bones out of it all, is to actually pick the bones and not just grab a chunk of meat then hide in the corner.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 27, 2016, 09:04:07 AM

So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

It's all assumptions until concrete proof can be had. The real issue is in being allowed to show what concrete proof is and having it accepted.
An instance is the Bedford level experiment. It should constitute concrete proof but it's not allowed. Why?
The answer is simple. Because mainstream supposed science does not allow this type of evidence. It's frowned upon and people are ridiculed by the brainwashed masses, instigated by those higher up.

The  supposed globe is saturated with assumptions, lies and total areas of misinformation/disinformation, yet it's allowed into mainstream as a theory that is known as scientifically correct, until something in time scuppers it.
The beauty about the "scientific THEORY"  is, they can peddle it as a truth whilst having the word as a contingency word of a guess if the shit hits the fan.

All flat Earth/alternate theorists/hypothesisers/assumers, etc, have is their own logical free thinking minds that will never be accepted as a thought if it goes against the preferred scientific fantasy/fiction.

The real truth about it all is, the entire make up of the entire world and whatever is beyond, is assumptions for anyone.
The key to gaining some semblance of understanding of a potential make up of Earth and beyond, is to make many assumptions and see which one's can actually make a fist of a potential reality and which one's can be discarded based on complete nonsense.

The globe model is one that I can cheerfully and easily discard as being a sci-fi set up, which includes a lot of utter gunk about supposed amazing machines that can weigh up to 3000 tonnes, being sent into the sky with men sitting atop.
You know, stuff like that. Clear and utter crap that only requires a leisurely argument about, against those that have been brainwashed so severely that they absolutely refuse to take a peak outside the box, never mind take a tentative step out of it.

Globalists assume flat/alternate Earth theorists are stark raving mad. Tin foil hat wearing idiots. Mainstream media provided the channel for words like these to be used  by those who want to keep bull crap hidden by smothering it with cream and strawberries so the gullible will ravenously gobble it all up and never pay much attention to the shitty aftertaste.

The only way to pick the bones out of it all, is to actually pick the bones and not just grab a chunk of meat then hide in the corner.

Concerning the Bedford experiment. It was done in a canal right? Water flows in a canal right? Then how can it be level/flat? Read Method (last sentence) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment.

THAT is why it is not accepted/allowed. It was considered, remeasured with more accurate equipment and falsified. Only FEers don't want to BELIEVE it and keep trying over and over and over again to bring it up.

On a lake though, it can be level. The same type of experiment was done there and got different results (you can start around 3:00):


Why don't FEers "allow" this proof/evidence?

Also, you say FEers are "logical". Fine. Apply your logic to this:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67201.msg1794676#msg1794676)

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 07:13:39 AM

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 27, 2016, 09:04:07 AM

So one huge problem I have noticed with the whole hypothesis is that there are a huge amount of assumptions. For example, the earth is flat, gravity is fake, the earth was created by a creator, the earth is infinite, there is a huge, impossible to reach ice wall, the list goes on. Seems to me that the more assumptions you have to make, the worse off your idea becomes.

It's all assumptions until concrete proof can be had. The real issue is in being allowed to show what concrete proof is and having it accepted.
An instance is the Bedford level experiment. It should constitute concrete proof but it's not allowed. Why?
The answer is simple. Because mainstream supposed science does not allow this type of evidence. It's frowned upon and people are ridiculed by the brainwashed masses, instigated by those higher up.

The  supposed globe is saturated with assumptions, lies and total areas of misinformation/disinformation, yet it's allowed into mainstream as a theory that is known as scientifically correct, until something in time scuppers it.
The beauty about the "scientific THEORY"  is, they can peddle it as a truth whilst having the word as a contingency word of a guess if the shit hits the fan.

All flat Earth/alternate theorists/hypothesisers/assumers, etc, have is their own logical free thinking minds that will never be accepted as a thought if it goes against the preferred scientific fantasy/fiction.

The real truth about it all is, the entire make up of the entire world and whatever is beyond, is assumptions for anyone.
The key to gaining some semblance of understanding of a potential make up of Earth and beyond, is to make many assumptions and see which one's can actually make a fist of a potential reality and which one's can be discarded based on complete nonsense.

The globe model is one that I can cheerfully and easily discard as being a sci-fi set up, which includes a lot of utter gunk about supposed amazing machines that can weigh up to 3000 tonnes, being sent into the sky with men sitting atop.
You know, stuff like that. Clear and utter crap that only requires a leisurely argument about, against those that have been brainwashed so severely that they absolutely refuse to take a peak outside the box, never mind take a tentative step out of it.

Globalists assume flat/alternate Earth theorists are stark raving mad. Tin foil hat wearing idiots. Mainstream media provided the channel for words like these to be used  by those who want to keep bull crap hidden by smothering it with cream and strawberries so the gullible will ravenously gobble it all up and never pay much attention to the shitty aftertaste.

The only way to pick the bones out of it all, is to actually pick the bones and not just grab a chunk of meat then hide in the corner.

First off, scientists would never ignore facts if they disproved a globe model, the scientist who found evidence supporting a flat earth would rush to tell EVERYONE. There are two things scientists love to do, disprove each other and leave behind a meaningful contribution and the one who discovered this would do both. He would be Copernicus or Newton level famous.

Secondly, Theory is used because omitting the word implies that the idea is flawless with no room to improve or modify. To use the globe model as an example, when first proposed in Greece by philosophers it was a perfect sphere, and it wasn't until the 17th century that the theory it may be an ellipsoid came into play.

Also, the 3000 ton number includes fuel and boosters, which break off or are expended during launch, there's no 3000 ton objects floating around Earth because we put them there, the largest is the ISS which is 419.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 29, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 07:13:39 AM

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

First off, scientists would never ignore facts if they disproved a globe model, the scientist who found evidence supporting a flat earth would rush to tell EVERYONE.

You're not that naive, I'm sure.

There are two things scientists love to do, disprove each other and leave behind a meaningful contribution and the one who discovered this would do both. He would be Copernicus or Newton level famous.

Only if it backs up the intended model being bandied about.

Secondly, Theory is used because omitting the word implies that the idea is flawless with no room to improve or modify. To use the globe model as an example, when first proposed in Greece by philosophers it was a perfect sphere, and it wasn't until the 17th century that the theory it may be an ellipsoid came into play.

That's what I'm saying. It's pushed as a truth but shrouded by the word "theory", as and when change is required to further an agenda or if a flaw is picked up.

Also, the 3000 ton number includes fuel and boosters, which break off or are expended during launch, there's no 3000 ton objects floating around Earth because we put them there, the largest is the ISS which is 419.

Lifting off a launch pad at 3000 tonnes. Laughable and I'll leave it at that.

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 08:05:44 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 29, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 07:13:39 AM

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:09:09 AM

First off, scientists would never ignore facts if they disproved a globe model, the scientist who found evidence supporting a flat earth would rush to tell EVERYONE.

You're not that naive, I'm sure.

Naďve is thinking that a scientist would not be drooling at the idea of disproving so many people over such a long period of time. There are also plenty of scientists who went against the accepted information of the time to put forth their ideas, sometimes in the face of major resistance.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:09:09 AM

There are two things scientists love to do, disprove each other and leave behind a meaningful contribution and the one who discovered this would do both. He would be Copernicus or Newton level famous.

Only if it backs up the intended model being bandied about.

I repeat, plenty who didn't support the accepted model and presented their own revolutionary theories. Darwin, Galileo and most major physicists from the early 20th century come to mind.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:09:09 AM

Secondly, Theory is used because omitting the word implies that the idea is flawless with no room to improve or modify. To use the globe model as an example, when first proposed in Greece by philosophers it was a perfect sphere, and it wasn't until the 17th century that the theory it may be an ellipsoid came into play.

That's what I'm saying. It's pushed as a truth but shrouded by the word "theory", as and when change is required to further an agenda or if a flaw is picked up.

A theory is pushed as a theory, a strongly supported explanation for an aspect of the world. In fact, from my experience when a theory is given, in a classroom, during a documentary or in a book, they will mention where the theory falls short or is incorrect, and then note who made changes or modifications that made the theory more plausible.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:09:09 AM

Also, the 3000 ton number includes fuel and boosters, which break off or are expended during launch, there's no 3000 ton objects floating around Earth because we put them there, the largest is the ISS which is 419.

Lifting off a launch pad at 3000 tonnes. Laughable and I'll leave it at that.

An inability to understand the magnitude of the forces being given does not mean that it does not happen. When you burn four million pounds of propellant, there isn't much that can't be lifted.

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 29, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 07:13:39 AM

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Um... so you are demonstrating you have no logic or "common sense".

You don't need to be there. Everyone (~billion people) south of the equator can SEE (<- one of your senses) it. Furthermore, as it is in the SKY, we don't actually need to go to Antarctica to SEE the SKY above it. As I said earlier, a star's declination = latitude. So the stars BELOW the SCP are on the other side of the Earth from you. <--- logic, "common sense".

If this is NOT good enough for you, I really feel sorry for you. So, you don't believe countries and continents exist if you personally haven't SEEN them. Really?

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:09:09 AM

Secondly, Theory is used because omitting the word implies that the idea is flawless with no room to improve or modify. To use the globe model as an example, when first proposed in Greece by philosophers it was a perfect sphere, and it wasn't until the 17th century that the theory it may be an ellipsoid came into play.

That's what I'm saying. It's pushed as a truth but shrouded by the word "theory", as and when change is required to further an agenda or if a flaw is picked up.

You mean like the whole FE FANTASY?

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 08:17:06 AM

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 08:05:44 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 29, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: Arctangent on June 29, 2016, 07:13:39 AM

Those are not assumptions. In epistemology, an assumption would correspond to a premise -- usually unspoken -- whereon the soundness of an argument rests.

Generally, flat earth theorists do not base their conclusion (that the earth is flat) on statements such as 'gravity is fake' or the like, but rather on the immediately verifiable information reported by their senses. Hence, assumptions of the flat earth model would be something like 'our senses are accurate,' and 'what is immediately verifiable takes primacy over that which is not,' etc.

Statements such as 'gravity is fake' are rather consequences intended to compare an already grounded conclusion -- that the earth is flat -- with exterior data -- such as seemingly contradictory data found in astrophysics textbooks. Such beliefs are not logically prior to belief in the flat earth.

Please apply your senses to the South Celestial Pole then. Why does it rise the farther south you go (and correspond to your latitude)? Why is it a single point?

You've been there, I take it?

Senses are a flimsy piece of evidence to support any theory, but that is usually the first one given by FE supporters. I could just as easily make the claim that because humans can't naturally see Infrared that it doesn't exist. Machines can perceive it? Doesn't matter, I have to rely on my natural senses.

No matter how sophisticated any scientific theory may be, it can be reduced to observations with the senses.

Again, the fact that our senses cannot perceive additional "invisible" data is not at all an impediment to what I'm arguing here. I don't have an affirmative belief that "infrared does not exist" before I indirectly observe infrared light through a machine. Hence, I have no reason to reject this additional data, because it does not conflict with my sensory data.

In this situation, my senses do lead to an affirmative belief that "the earth is flat." Hence, I do have a reason to reject additional indirect observation of the earth's rotundity (say, through a supposed photograph), because it does conflict with my sensory data of the earth's flatness. See the difference?

No because there is no difference. If you are saying "I see the Earth is flat and therefore ignore any and all evidence demonstrating that it is round" the same logic can be used to say "I see the whole world in the visible light spectrum, therefore any evidence indicating there are wavelengths of light outside of this range can be rejected". This logic could be taken even further to the absurd, such as "I didn't see George Washington alive with my own eyes, therefore he didn't exist".

Senses are how observations are made, which then lead to a hypothesis which is then tested  and rejected, modified or supported. And if the theory has hundreds of years of evidence and work supporting it, the theory is a pretty valid one.

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:05:23 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 10:12:29 AM

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:05:23 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:27:03 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 10:12:29 AM

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:05:23 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

Do you want to discuss Galileo? Who was under house arrest for years because of his scientific discoveries? How about if Einstein had kept shut about his work with Physics he might not have come to Hitler's attention? You are ignoring the fact that there has always been and will always be scientists willing to go against the norm, against "them", willing to put their reputations on the line for the sake of a discovery. I also notice you conveniently ignored the whole "There's been centuries of evidence supporting spherical earth and disproving a flat one."

Are you missing the other people I mentioned? Like scientists who would probably notice that things don't add up? Pilots who are flying on the edge of "known space" and say "hey there's more stuff over there!". Astronauts who have seen the curvature of earth? Its not shutting up workers, its shutting up hundreds of people outside of the "unknown areas".

Quote from: Jadyyn on June 29, 2016, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Most of my examples in this forum are based on amateur astronomy (visual/photographic). Sorry, the heavens are the same in the real world. There are LOTS of pictures of them and LOTS of astronomers (probably no FEers though). Science works just like it supposed to. No amount of "egos" is going to change the sky.

The only "censure" and "lies" I see are FEers refusing to look at/photograph the sky and making up BS about it. A telescope is a bad/scary word to FEers. So I totally agree with what you said concerning FEers.

Just because you have been told to look at one thing, and been told that thing must mean the Earth is round, doesn't mean you haven't been lied to.
If the scientific community is so open and honest, why do they laugh at and refuse to honestly consider or develop a competing FE model?

Because THERE IS NO SINGLE FE MODEL and CAN NOT BE.

On this forum, pretty much everyone debating has their own model. Which one do you want REers to "honestly consider"?

You CAN NOT have a "competing FE model" because the SKY is incorrect.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66454.msg1776164#msg1776164)

Then there are the Earth problems - why there hasn't been a FE map for THOUSANDS of years:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

You can, and most threads here do, argue "**IF** a FE model EXISTED, what would UA/denpressure be like? What would the "dome"/"edge" be like? What would the horizon look like/from what altitude? etc." But there is no single model, just ad hoc explanations that (1) don't match the sky/heavens and (2) cause conflicting/contradictory problems with other ad hoc explanations and (3) most cause more problems than they sort-of solve and (4) are untestable/fantasy explanations.

To make a model work, at the VERY LEAST, it has to have people living on BOTH sides (so you have a SINGLE POINT S.POLE under the S. Celestial Pole). THAT has to be the VERY MINIMUM for a model to be even viable. I presented such a model here.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.0)

Of course you have to assume 2 MAJOR things exist. (1) The atmosphere/world/your brain has to process FE sensory inputs and convert them into a spherical Earth and (2) you need a instantaneous teleportation wall around the equator. If you look a JRoweSkeptic's Dual Earth model (it has major problems), that is EXACTLY what his model uses (Aether for the warping and instantaneous travel between disks via zero concentration Aether). The magical mythical Aether does it all with several ad hoc contradictory properties and no evidence.

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 10:32:09 AM

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:27:03 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 10:12:29 AM

Quote from: Havoc101 on June 29, 2016, 10:05:23 AM

Quote from: Triddles on June 29, 2016, 09:55:47 AM

Your idealized view of science has no connection to the real world. You may want science to work that way, but it does not. People have egos: telling someone that they're wrong with lead to them being angry with you. Telling an army that they're wrong will lead to censure.

People will always lie for so long as they have something to gain.

Because a scientist will be terrified of telling Newton he is wrong? There are no living scientists who had a part in the formation of the spherical Earth model or the origin of a heliocentric universe.

And what is there to gain? Why bother lying and "hiding" that the Earth is flat?

Scientists who defend existing theories do not have to have invented those theories to be protective. They do not want to look outside their narrow view of the world. The idea that we should is met with ridicule: why would a scientific community have to resort to insults? That's hardly logical.
If the Earth is flat, there are plainly huge parts of the world that the general public does not know exist, and does not go to. There is land and minerals and precious metals that exist purely for the benefit of the elite that know the truth. Motive enough.

Of course they want to "look outside their narrow view of the world" the ultimate goal of science is to understand, why things happen the way they do, how things formed, what will happen in the future, etc. They protect the spherical model because it has stood up to enormous amounts of scrutiny, testing and experimentation, which a flat earth model has not done.

Okay, lets assume that you are correct then, who is mining it? They would need workers correct? Okay so that's hundreds to thousands of workers mining and processing the materials. You would also need people working to cover up any and all evidence of these workers and new materials, people working to cover up any flat earth evidence, bribes to anyone who could blow the whistle on this and the ability to covertly remove anyone not willing to lie. Thousands of people complicit to a massive secret. And you want to argue that they are successful in this? And have been for the 2000+ years that a spherical earth has been accepted as a fact?

Please leave your idealism at the door. Nothing ever works exactly the way it is planned. Why are scientists exempt from human nature?
How would workers in areas no one knows exist be able to 'blow the whistle?'

Do you want to discuss Galileo? Who was under house arrest for years because of his scientific discoveries? How about if Einstein had kept shut about his work with Physics he might not have come to Hitler's attention? You are ignoring the fact that there has always been and will always be scientists willing to go against the norm, against "them", willing to put their reputations on the line for the sake of a discovery. I also notice you conveniently ignored the whole "There's been centuries of evidence supporting spherical earth and disproving a flat one."

Are you missing the other people I mentioned? Like scientists who would probably notice that things don't add up? Pilots who are flying on the edge of "known space" and say "hey there's more stuff over there!". Astronauts who have seen the curvature of earth? Its not shutting up workers, its shutting up hundreds of people outside of the "unknown areas".

You just gave examples of scientists who people actively attempted to make recant. Are you really going to claim science is such an open institution? There are people today who happily put their reputations on the line and defend a flat Earth, why are they lunatics rather than Galileos and Einsteins? Are you listening to yourself?
There have not been centuries of evidence that do what you claim. How would you have be respond? You did not give even an example of such evidence, you just claimed that it existed as though tradition was an argument. In actual fact, there is centuries of development based upon the supposition of a round Earth and the falseness of a flat Earth.
You mentioned no other people than the workers. This is a matter of record. if you wish to improve your argument, do so, but don't try to rewrite history. We have already discussed people who notice things that do not add up. I have no idea how you believe pilots would fly on the edge of known space: do you think they'd expect to find an edge on a sphere? Astronauts would be self-selected.