Hello to all proponents of both Flat Earth and Round Earth Theories, my moniker is Dao and I'm a recent register to this site. My motivations for my entry here is that I'm looking to explore Non-Globular* Earth Theory mathematically, measure the internal consistency of that theory, and form a mathematical foundation for the theory if it turns out to be self-consistent. As I understand it, the Flat Earth Society is formed by a diversity of Flat Earth proponents which makes it a good resource for the information I need for my current project. With that said, I hope you accept me into your forum and please provide as much information as you can as it would be greatly appreciated.
Now, to begin with my current status, I began by first measuring the theoretical legitimacy of Non-Globular Earth theory ranging from its logical foundations to probability to testability. I start here because a theory is separated from a hypothesis or an idea by way of empirical aptitude and logical basis. It's one thing to say something exists, it's different when can explain why and how it exists and how to prove that it does. The statement makes it an idea but the rest make it a theory. Therefore, judging Non-Globular theories requires five parts: Foundations, Testability, Evidentiality, Consistency, and Justifiability.
Foundationally, NGET** is derived from a variety of "facets of science and philosophy"
[1]. This will propose a consistency problem later. The biggest assumption made is that of the assurance of the empirical approach
[1]. The breakdown here is that the senses are incredibly limited and individually different, and cannot create an objective and accurate description of reality. The inherent limitations and weaknesses of our senses need to be accounted for and relieved by use of tools and mathematics. The belief that our senses are accurate enough to depict reality as it is is naive. Then again, philosophical shallowness seems to prevade the theory as is evidenced by the claim that GET (Globular Earth Theory) is the one with the burden of proof
[1] despite the rule that any truth claim made has the burden of proof. This creates a foundational risk since this would indicate a lack of self-reflection within the theory and, therefore, no checking over the consistency and accuracy of it's claims.
As far as testability is concerned, NGET is theorizing at a cosmological scale. It makes remarks refuting and ultimately changing the very structure of our universe
[1][2]. Because of this, there's a variety of issues dealing with experimentation and testing and, given the earlier stance on empiricism, the only true way of gaining evidence is through direct observation which has yet to be performed for much of the theory's claims.
Speaking of evidence, all reported evidence for the theory have been incredibly dismissive and no direct observation has been made of any of the theory's assertions. This places it as being low on provability and lacking evidential depth. This causes serious justifiability issues.
Which leads us into the mext topic, without a definitive method of ecperiment or any evidence to its name, NGET has been looking pretty grim as a well-formed theory. The final nail in the coffin is that it's a theory that has little purpose as a theory outside of being a reaction to GET, making it unjustifiable logically and telologically.
However, I believe that the final category, Consistency, is what it needs to get off the ground and become a valid theory instead of a skeptical reaction to GET. With that said, all it really needs is greater mathematical workings which I can provide. Before I do though, I have to make known the current hurdles the theory as far as its physics is concerned.
-------------
*Non-Globular is a more proper name for the nature of the Flat Earth argument
** Non-Globular Earth Theory
1. Flat Earth FAQ
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,11211.0.html#.T-Y4kitYuoE2. The Flat Earth Wiki- The Cosmos
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Cosmos