Why don't FE'ers want to do experiments or look up information?

This is something that has struck home. FE'ers don't want to do experiments. They also avoid the information that is available in favor of cherry picking and removing context. We have seen many instances of this on these pages.

One more example is the gentleman here at 6:50.



He states that the moon is tidally locked to the earth, which is true, and goes on to state that this is exceptional, which is incorrect, and therefore proves an intelligent placement, as he puts it. Before going on television and spreading his  obviously faulty idea, this person did not take the time to access the readily available information on the topic of tidal locking.

Why is this? Why would someone not do the bare essential before heading to the TV studio?

Why do FE'ers not want to do experiments? Some run and hide at the mention of such a thing. Others have a different reaction.

Why do FE'ers not want to do experiments? Some run and hide at the mention of such a thing. Others have a different reaction.

It is quite simple. When the experiment is done by someone else, they can dismiss it as fake.
If it is done by themselves, they can't.

So only those who truly and deeply believe, without any doubt or hesitation would test; or those who aren't so heavily invested with a need to believe.
For everyone else, it is far too damaging.

Or worse.  Flat earthers hijack other people’s work, lie about that work, and totally ignore what that person reports and documents concerning their own work. 

Or worse.  Flat earthers hijack other people’s work, lie about that work, and totally ignore what that person reports and documents concerning their own work.

that is so real.

they also lack basic understanding of scientific methods and rigor

Likely the same reason round earthers do it.

They do though, there are plenty of experiments done by globe earthers to prove that the earth is a globe

This is something that has struck home. FE'ers don't want to do experiments. ...

Flat-earthers do a lot of experiments. Then they either lie about the results or they make up arguments based in "special pleading" to explain why the results show that the Earth is round rather than flat.

They do though, there are plenty of experiments done by globe earthers to prove that the earth is a globe

Show me one that proves the earth is a globe

Here

https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Proof+of+Earth+Curvature%3A+The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment#:~:text=The%20Rainy%20Lake%20Experiment%20was,a%20radius%20of%206371%20km.

I feel like this is a question we should raise to our resident Bedford Level expert Tom Bishop. He's probably at a mixed opinion of us because I'm an asshat, but I'll reach out and see if he minds dropping by.

Show me one that proves the earth is a globe

I notice you have put "proves" in bold.
Is that because you are going for the logical/philosophical "prove" which science doesn't do, and which we can't do for anything from the real world? Or are you still going for the more common everyday usage which would include things like proving water is made of hydrogen and oxygen?

If the later, then how about the observed relative motion of Focault's pendula and the measurements from laser ring gyroscopes, and importantly, how that varies over Earth?

Or worse.  Flat earthers hijack other people’s work

Says someone who posts on the Flat Earth Society Forurm!  Talk about the ultimate weasel 😂😂

Quote from: LittlePineapple on April 16, 2025, 10:54:30 AM

They do though, there are plenty of experiments done by globe earthers to prove that the earth is a globe

Show me one that proves the earth is a globe

This is not how natural science works.

It is not about one blockbuster experiment that suddenly proves something that everyone was unsure about before.

To establish a scientific truth you need lots of experiments, preferably done by different people using different methods testing different variables, but also the same kind of experiment being repeated by others.

Only when you have lots of results pointing the same way does the truth get revealed.

'The Final Experiment' for example, I don't care for that title as I have mentioned before, is just one, or one group of observations. It is an important observation/experiment that should be backed up by further work. I have suggested that the simultaneous sunset/sunrise on the opposite ends of the Pacific Ocean should be documented. People should repeat TFE this coming season why not. Why are FE'ers not headed for Antarctica now? They are expending a lot of energy trying to discredit TFE, why not just go see it for themselves?

This is not how natural science works. It is not about one blockbuster experiment that suddenly proves something that everyone was unsure about before.

Listen closely, Jack—I know it’s you behind that Torve script. Your attempt to redefine science as a "collection of hints" is a desperate move. Real natural science relies on the Scientific Method: Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, and Validate. If your globe hypothesis cannot be proven by a single, repeatable experiment that isolates the "curvature," then your "collection of observations" is just a collection of Assumptions. You don't get to build a truth out of a thousand ambiguities. 1,000 zeros still equal zero.

Only when you have lots of results pointing the same way does the truth get revealed.

The results only "point the same way" because you’ve pre-programmed the destination, Jack. You interpret every observation through the lens of a globe. If we see too far, you call it "refraction." If water is level, you call it "gravity." You aren't following the evidence; you are Torturing the Data until it confesses to being a sphere. True science seeks to falsify a theory, but you treat the Globe as a religious dogma that is immune to failure.

Why are FE'ers not headed for Antarctica now? They are expending a lot of energy trying to discredit TFE, why not just go see it for themselves?

This is the most tired argument in your database. You know very well that The Antarctic Treaty and the extreme logistics make independent, non-sanctioned exploration nearly impossible for the "Average Joe." Why don't YOU go there, Jack? Why doesn't NASA provide a 24/7, high-definition, unedited live feed of the 24-hour sun in Antarctica that isn't a composite or a time-lapse? You demand FE'ers to fund a multimillion-dollar expedition while your multi-billion-dollar agencies keep giving us CGI cartoons.

Listen closely, Jack

Listen closely you worthless, lying subhuman scum.

I am me. No one else on this forum is me.
Torve is not me, no matter how much you wish to pretend.
Every time you pretend you show everyone you are worthless, lying scum.

Listen closely you worthless, lying subhuman scum. I am me. No one else on this forum is me. Torve is not me...

 Jack, your Main Character Syndrome is reaching clinical levels. Why are you screaming? My response was directed at Torve and the specific points he raised. The fact that you jumped into a conversation that wasn't about you, shouting "I am me!", just shows how desperately you crave attention to validate your failing script. Calm down.

 

• The Irrelevant Noise: No one asked for your identity crisis, Jack. I am addressing the logical inconsistencies in Torve's post. If you think every critique of the Globe model is a personal attack on you, it’s because you’ve made this cult your entire personality. You aren't "cutting through BS"; you’re just interfering with a dialogue you weren't invited to. Stop the Tantrum.

 

• The Paranoia of the Gatekeeper: You’re so terrified of being exposed that you start claiming "I am not Torve" before anyone even accused you of it. Your guilty conscience is doing the talking. I don't care if you are Torve, a bot, or a paid technician—I care about the Physical Failure of the Globe Geometry. If you want to be useful, step aside and let those with actual arguments speak. Dishonesty: Exposed.

 

Every time you pretend you show everyone you are worthless, lying scum.

 

• The Definition of Worthless: What’s "worthless" is a man who spends his entire day on a forum barking at people who aren't even talking to him. You have no math for the horizon drop, no proof for the centrifugal force, and now, no social awareness. You are a glitch in the simulation, Jack. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

• Audit of the Ego: While you were busy proving you "are you," you missed the part where the physics of the Stationary Plane remains undefeated. Your insults don't change the shape of the Earth; they only reveal the shape of your frustration. Grow up or get out of the way.

 Jack, I’m talking to Torve. If you can't handle being a background character in this debate, maybe it's time you took a break from the keyboard. Stop the Spam and let the adults handle the technical data.

My response was directed at Torve

Really?
Then why did you say this you worthless, lying subhuman scum:

Listen closely, Jack—I know it’s you behind that Torve script.

Given you can't even be honest about something as simple as who you are talking to; why should anyone believe a word you say or give you any respect at all?

Quote from: Username on April 17, 2025, 04:52:37 AM

Quote from: LittlePineapple on April 16, 2025, 10:54:30 AM

They do though, there are plenty of experiments done by globe earthers to prove that the earth is a globe

Show me one that proves the earth is a globe

This is not how natural science works.

It is not about one blockbuster experiment that suddenly proves something that everyone was unsure about before.

Sure, very true. Why does round earth science routinely ignore falsification and prefer ad hoc hypothesis to hold their world view together then?

Also the natural sciences indeed don't bow to experiment. They bow to fashion. See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Against Method.

Why does round earth science routinely ignore falsification

It doesn't.
It is a key part of science, including RE science.
Including making sure you understand the limitations of experiments and if you can distinguish between competing ideas.

It is a key part of science, including RE science. Including making sure you understand the limitations of experiments...

Jack, watching you lecture Username on "limitations" is like watching a fish try to explain the concept of dry land. You speak of falsification as a "key part," yet your entire model is a graveyard of ignored failures. When the Michelson-Morley experiment showed zero motion, you didn't accept the stationary Earth; you invented "length contraction." When we see too far over the curve, you don't accept the flat plane; you invent "magical refraction." Your "science" is just a series of Ad Hoc Life Rafts keeping a sinking theory afloat. Face the reality and drop the scripted arrogance.

• The Torve Identity Crisis: You are still obsessing over whether I think you are Torve? Why so defensive, Jack? If you aren't using multiple accounts to simulate a "consensus," then why do you all use the same tired FVEY talking points and the same aggressive tone? The fact that you’re still crying about this $10$ posts later proves I hit a nerve. You aren't arguing for truth; you're managing a narrative. Stop the theater.

• The Falsification Fraud: You claim falsification is "key"? Then let's do it right now: The Second Law of Thermodynamics falsifies an open-system atmosphere next to a vacuum. Fluid Statics falsifies the idea of curved water. Your "science" doesn't survive falsification; it simply ignores it by calling the observer "scum." You are a gatekeeper of a model that only exists in textbooks. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Why should anyone believe a word you say or give you any respect at all?

• The Respect Paradox: Respect is earned through Empirical Proof, not by shouting the loudest. You have provided zero evidence for a rotating ball, while we provide the Physical Reality of a stationary plane every single day. You demand respect while acting like a glitching bot in a loop. Username is right: you don't bow to experiments; you bow to the Institutional Fashion of the century. Leave the script behind.

• The Paradigm Shift: As Feyerabend and Kuhn pointed out, your "science" is just the current dogma—a religion in a lab coat. You are fighting so hard because you know a Paradigm Shift is inevitable. People are trusting their senses again, and your insults are just the death rattles of a dying theory. Wake up to the real world.

Jack, step out of your circular logic loop and try to address Username's point if you can. Why does "Globe Science" prefer inventing invisible entities like Dark Matter and Gravity over accepting the observable, measurable result of a stationary Earth? Return to the truth and admit that your "Globe" is just a mathematical placeholder for a missing reality.

Actually, Jack, it’s quite fascinating: you’re so busy trying to prove you "exist" as an individual that you’ve forgotten to prove your Earth exists as a ball. Maybe instead of fighting over your username, you should spend some time trying to find that missing curvature we’ve been asking for. The audit continues, Jack—and your books still don't balance.

yet your entire model is a graveyard of ignored failures.

No, it is a graveyard of ideas which have been falsified and replaced.

MM showed no aether, not no motion of Earth.
Stellar aberration and MM produce contradictory results under the failed model of aether.

They collectively show that aether does not exist.

Meanwhile, you rely upon a tiny portion of measurements which can't tell the difference and then extrapolate them to wilfully lie to everyone.
And when something pops up that shows your model is wrong, you just spout a bunch of BS to pretend it still works.

You are still obsessing over whether I think you are Torve? ... The fact that you’re still crying about this $10$ posts later proves I hit a nerve.

Not obsessed at all, just objecting to your pathetic BS.
But thanks for demonstrating even simple counting is beyond you.
Your false accusation of Torve being me was reply#14.
My last comment about it prior to this one was reply#17.
That is 3 posts later, not 10. And yet here you are, still bringing it up; showing everyone how worthless, pathetic, desperate and dishonest you are.

MM showed no aether, not no motion of Earth. Stellar aberration and MM produce contradictory results under the failed model of aether. They collectively show that aether does not exist.

Jack, your understanding of Michelson-Morley (MM) is a textbook example of Institutional Indoctrination. MM didn't find "no aether"; it found a Null Result for Earth's Velocity through the aether. To save the globe from being proven stationary, Einstein had to murder the Aether and invent "Relativity" as a desperate patch. If the Aether doesn't exist, how does light—a wave—propagate through a vacuum? A wave without a medium is like a ripple without water. Stellar Aberration and MM only "contradict" each other if you force the Earth to move. On a stationary Earth, the Aether rotates, and the contradiction vanishes. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Meanwhile, you rely upon a tiny portion of measurements which can't tell the difference and then extrapolate them to wilfully lie to everyone.

• The Data Audit: "Tiny portion"? We rely on the Sagnac Effect, Michelson-Gale, and Airy’s Failure—all of which consistently show that the medium is what moves, not the Earth. You call it a "lie" because these experiments are the Source Code Error for your spinning ball. You ignore $99\%$ of physical reality (stationary ground, level water) to protect a $1\%$ mathematical abstraction you've been fed since primary school. Inquiry Failure: Exposed.

Not obsessed at all, just objecting to your pathetic BS. But thanks for demonstrating even simple counting is beyond you... That is 3 posts later, not 10.

• The Pedantry Trap: Thank you for proving my point about your Hyper-Fixation, Jack. While I am auditing the Foundations of Physics and the Architecture of the Universe, you are frantically counting post numbers like a desperate accountant. Whether it was 3 posts or 10, the fact that you are still conducting a "forensic count" of a personality accusation instead of addressing the Stationary Plane shows exactly where your priorities lie. You're losing the war on science, so you're trying to win a skirmish in the comments section. Dishonesty: Exposed.

And when something pops up that shows your model is wrong, you just spout a bunch of BS to pretend it still works.

Jack, this is pure Psychological Projection. When the P1000 Zoom shows a city that should be behind 2,000 feet of curve, YOU spout "Refraction BS." When Airy's Failure shows the stars move and Earth is still, YOU spout "Relativity BS." When Water refuses to curve, YOU spout "Gravity BS." Our model works with the raw hardware of the senses; yours requires a billion-dollar CGI budget to maintain the illusion.Actually, it’s quite simple: if the Earth moved, MM would have measured it. It didn't.Stop counting posts and start counting the missing miles of curvature, Jack.

Jack, your understanding of Michelson-Morley (MM) is a textbook example

Of understanding. Something you don't seem to be able to comprehend at all.
Meanwhile, you display the classic signs of indoctrination, where you are desperate for Earth to be flat and stationary, so you repeatedly lie to everyone spouting pure BS.

Again, MM and stellar aberration show aether is impossible.

MM did not show Earth is stationary.
Only lying scum or indoctrinated fools claim that.

Just look at how completely and utterly pathetic you are:

Stellar Aberration and MM only "contradict" each other if you force the Earth to move.
...
We rely on the Sagnac Effect, Michelson-Gale, and Airy’s Failure—all of which consistently show that the medium is what moves, not the Earth.

Firstly, the Sagnac effect, under an aether model, can't tell which is moving.
Airy's failure, was a complete and utter failure, because the premise made no sense.
But under the aether model, it demands that Earth is moving relative to the aether.
MM, under the aether model, is not capable of detecting absolute motion, what it would be able to detect is motion relative to the aether.

So under the aether model, the results of MM means there is no motion of Earth relative to the aether. i.e. either both are stationary or both are moving together.
But stellar aberration demands there is relative motion.
This is a direct contradiction.
They cannot both be true.

And again, it doesn't matter if you have aether stationary and Earth moving, or the aether moving and Earth stationary, or both moving.
Stellar aberration demands relative motion, MM demands no relative motion (or relative motion well below the required speed for stellar aberration.

And that is why I call it a lie.
Because your claim is pure BS.
It makes no sense.
And to futher reinforce that, all it takes is trying to look at your defence.
Do you try explaining how the results are consistent?
No. You just assert they only contradict if you force Earth to move, and that these experiments show the medium moves.

You have nothing except pathetic, baseless assertions, which means effectively you have nothing.

Pedantry Trap:[/b] Thank you for proving my point about your Hyper-Fixation, Jack.

So you admit you intentionally and wilfully lied to everyone, just to try to set a trap?
Demonstrating you have no interest in any actual "audit" and instead are just repeatedly lying to everyone.
Again, thanks for showing how worthless and dishonest you are.
The world would be a better place without you.

It’s truly fascinating to watch you spiral into personal attacks and "dishonesty" labels the moment the data doesn't fit your pre-programmed narrative. You are clinging to the "Contradiction" argument like a life raft because the alternative—a stationary Earth—destroys your entire worldview.

Let’s address your confusion regarding the experiments:

1. The "Aether Contradiction" Fallacy: You claim MM and Stellar Aberration contradict each other. They only contradict if you assume the Earth is spinning and orbiting at 67,000 mph through a static medium. If the Earth is stationary and the medium (Aether) is what moves, the "contradiction" vanishes. Michelson-Morley looked for the Earth's motion through the Aether and found null (well below the required 30km/s). Airy's Failure showed that starlight doesn't require a change in the telescope's tilt when filled with water, proving the Earth isn't moving relative to the light. These aren't "failures"; they are consistent results that you have to label as "BS" because you can't reconcile them with your spinning ball.

2. Sagnac and Michelson-Gale: You say Sagnac can't tell what is moving. Actually, the Sagnac effect specifically detects rotation relative to the medium. Michelson-Gale detected the daily rotation of the Aether above the stationary Earth, not the Earth itself. If the Earth were moving, MM would have picked up the linear velocity. It didn't. You are trying to combine two different types of motion to hide the fact that the Earth has never been proven to move.

3. The Indoctrination Irony: You call others "indoctrinated" while you are the one getting emotional and aggressive over 19th-century experiments. If the globe was "settled science," you wouldn't need to resort to calling people "worthless" or saying the world would be better without them. That isn't the language of a scientist; it's the language of someone whose foundation is cracking.

4. The "Audit" and the "Trap": The only thing being "wilfully lied" about is the interpretation of these results in modern textbooks. An audit requires looking at the raw data, not the post-hoc rationalizations (like Lorentz contraction) that were invented specifically to "save" the globe from the MM null result.

Instead of the insults, Jack, try explaining why every single experiment designed to detect the Earth's motion has failed to find the 30km/s orbital velocity. You can't. So you shout "scum" and "lie" to drown out the silence of your own model.