Peer reviewed FE paper

Would any FlatEarther be so kind to provide a reference to a peer reviewed research paper about flat Earth? They all claim it is well researched and all the mathematics fit with flat Earth. I would assume that such an important discovery would be good for a publication in a high ranking scientific journal.

Who are the peers of FE?

Who are the peers of FE?

Hahahahahahaha... precisely! 

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 31, 2018, 04:37:16 AM

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Can you provide a single FE paper this organisation has peer-reviewed?  I would honestly like to see it.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 31, 2018, 04:37:16 AM

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Ummm, I don't think they would consider the organisation as a peer to the FES 

Links to Related Organizations:  http://www.iugg.org/links.php

In fact, my guess is that they would probably get pissed off if FES started calling them a peer organisation.  It would be like the KKK supporting a presidential nominee.  They wouldn't want any part of it. 

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2018, 06:13:22 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 31, 2018, 04:37:16 AM

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Can you provide a single FE paper this organisation has peer-reviewed?  I would honestly like to see it.

I would think that any FE papers reviewed would have been rejected and therefore not published.  However there have been several notable FE works published without peer review.
http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Birley-Rowbotham-Samuel-Earth-not-a-globe
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9644166-terra-firma
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/04/the-flat-earth-truth.html

Quote from: Really on May 31, 2018, 06:16:23 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2018, 06:13:22 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 31, 2018, 04:37:16 AM

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Can you provide a single FE paper this organisation has peer-reviewed?  I would honestly like to see it.

I would think that any FE papers reviewed would have been rejected and therefore not published.  However there have been several notable FE works published without peer review.
http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Birley-Rowbotham-Samuel-Earth-not-a-globe
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9644166-terra-firma
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/04/the-flat-earth-truth.html

Well... in the absence of peer review... they are effectively rubbish.  That applies to "any" paper that is published.  Without peer review, it's merely the word of the person stating it.  Sorry but, that doesn't wash.

Here's an example.  A long, long time ago (1637ad), a fellow proposed a mathematical theorem that states;

a^n + b^n = c^n

I will let you go find out how long it took to prove that theorem.  It might surprise you but the point is, you have to validate your work, regardless of what it is, in order for it to be of value.

Fermat's Last Theorem is the topic you want to read about.  Pick your own sources.  I'm sure it will describe it rather nicely given the age and length of time it took to prove the work.

Quote from: Really on May 31, 2018, 06:16:23 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2018, 06:13:22 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 31, 2018, 04:37:16 AM

Who are the peers of FE?

People who study the size, shape and workings of the earth for a living.
http://www.iag-aig.org/

Can you provide a single FE paper this organisation has peer-reviewed?  I would honestly like to see it.

I would think that any FE papers reviewed would have been rejected and therefore not published.  However there have been several notable FE works published without peer review.
http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Birley-Rowbotham-Samuel-Earth-not-a-globe
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9644166-terra-firma
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/04/the-flat-earth-truth.html

Incidentally, let me add this...  I don't think any paper will be disregarded based on the fact that it offers a controversial perspective.  Some people may reject it but on the whole, if it is backed by scientific method and supported through an adequately synthesised literature review, it will be published.  Other researchers can rag on it all they want but, it will be peer-reviewed and published.

The thing is though... a person can't go out and look at the moon and say, "the moon is a hologram", without providing evidence other than expressing a conclusion that fails due to a fallacy in logic such as, post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.  Nobody will accept that kind of logic and rationalisation of an issue.

Take a look at these fallacies of the argument then reflect on the manner by which people propose a point then argue it;

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm

It's not a complete listing but, it is rather extensive.