Definition of terms and definitions to start with. Also, people who have different opinions about stuff like this might not be antagonistic enemies and this type of disagreement should not mean that people cannot work together for other shared goals.
Discussion about how the debate will be conducted, the rules, etc. should be discussed before hand.
Thanks. This is the first comment I've read so far that comes close to addressing the questions I raised.
Let's sit a Flat Earther in a room, and ask: How do you know the shape of the earth?
How do you know what you know? Is it based in sound science, and reason? or belief in a Holy Book? If we were to sit you in a room with a Globe Earther, what kind of evidence or logical argument would you be demanding from them? Can both side construct a COMMON FRAMEWORK for establishing proof?
Now let;s do the same thing with a Globe Earther. Ask the same questions (substituting roles).
Im not a framework would be possible. I personally have no idea which is correct, but the issue will always be where the information used in the framework has come from and whether or not it can be trusted. The answer to this question only really matters to those who want to control us anyway. If someone wants to live their life by a flat earth and therefor discount/ignore any directives from any government on this basis, that should be their right to do so, as it it should be with those that do not believe in viruses to do the same.
Thanks for your corrections Bill, you corrected me correctly 😁. That's a fair point about virology but globe earth is a harder one to prove. I think, if they took Steve Falconer and myself to their space station for a few hours, that should solve the whole thing, right? He's a nailed on flat earther and I'm an interested sceptic so there shouldn't be any bias.
A big concern with many is trusting the source of some information, many believe that almost all the information received about space is second hand. So verifying the validity of the information source will be tricky.
This is actually really simple. The diameter of the earth is 8000 miles which means, as a spherical globe, the earth must curve at 8 inches per miles squared. Place an object on the ground that you know is 10 miles away from where you are standing. (Maybe on the the other side of a lake that you know is 10 miles) At 10 miles, the curvature should be 0.01263 miles and that object should be hidden by 66.69 feet of curvature. Use a camera like a Nikon p-1000 which allows you to zoom in to that object that is 10 miles away....IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND SEE IT WITH YOUR CAMERA, THERE IS NO CURVE. (Unless of course the earth is much larger). Remember, cameras see in straight lines just as the human eye; they cannot magically see over curves.
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR ANY SIDE. This is a repeatable experiment that anyone can do!! Repeatable experiments are necessary components of scientific qualification. Your requirements are not merely pointless but completely unnecessary when the results of this one experiment is irrefutable scientific evidence.
I want to establish an EPISTIMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK for how both sides can agree. This could apply to Flat Earth vs Globe, or Vax vs No Virus, or any subject.
I want to discuss science and logic. I want to talk about the Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. I want to talk about falsifiable hypotheses, and possible limitations on the scope of applicibility of the Scientific Method.
What KIND of proof or argument is required?
And what does proof mean?
I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO ANY DETAILS about curvature or discuss taking measurements, at this point. We are not there yet. WE FIRST need to get both sides to agree as to what EVIDENCE or LOGICAL ARGUMENT would be necessary to get you to rethink the position that you currently hold?
If we don't do this first, then we are never going to have a productive debate or investigation.
There's one thing I forgot to mention in this article:
I'm not saying that if we have a case where the scientific method it's outside of its scope of applicability, that we have to throw science away at that point as a useful tool for analysis.
While the scientific method provides a very high standard of proof, it is not our only tool at our disposal for rational inquiry.
The very essence of science is empirical. Empiricism is something that you do with your eyes and your ears and your senses. Empiricism involves an experience of our 4D cause-effect phenomenal reality.
Science is also LOGIC. It is applied reason.
The essence of science is thus:
a) Careful Observation, and b) Applied Reason.
So even if we have one of the many well-known cases which are outside the scope of applicability of the scientific method (untestable hypothesis, dealing with long time scales, situations in the past, one-time events, things dealing with extreme scales of Mass or Distance), we can still observe and reason. We can build predictive models and measure for accuracy.
Reality as it can be observed and perceived through our own senses has to be our starting point, which is my cosmology is founded on a stationary Earth with Luminaries rotating in a sky clock above us.
I decided some time ago that reality exists in nature and human interactions. Everything else is part of the "Simulation", and should be treated as such.
It seems to me that you can use the scientific method to answer this question- that is, you can see which hypothesis best explains observable regularities in nature. The main difference from other branches of science is that these regularities - seasons, sunsets, the diurnal cycle etc generally speak for themselves and don't usually require experimentation to make them plain.
In short... Method: Scientific Method with agreed upon instruments/approach/methods.
General Approach: Open Inquiry
Some caveats:
Any discussion regarding data, claimed evidence and/or experiments is approached with impartial scientific exploration, a willingness to agree upon methodology for each experiment, and a willingness to throw out data that those who refute a claim do not agree are valid. All involved in the pursuit of truth are willing to abandon previous bias and understandings. An openness to alternate interpretations of data are necessary and an understanding that interpretation of data is not necessarily scientific, but rather, may be speculative based on ideas or world views that may not be validated (circular reasoning). Get to know what logical fallacies are and how to avoid them.
So, if we truly desire to seek the truth, or at least a layer of truth, we can begin with our sensory perception and then step our way out to instruments that have been validated by both parties, the claimant and the challenger. The methodology that can be agreed upon is basic, observable, repeatable scientific method.
The noteworthy challenge of this process of making discoveries about our Realm is that simply challenging the globe theory can provoked emotional reactions in some people, most typically anger. Those who believe in the validity of the claim that our realm is a spinning globe have *faith* that really smart people working for NASA and other "space" agencies have already done the basic science to prove the claim. Those who believe that we live on a globe have often not questioned the validity of what they have been taught and react with anger, likely because they do not think that they should have to validate that information for themselves. They want to "trust the experts". This emotional charge is a major block that prevents civil discourse and scientific debate...and always leads to name calling - an obvious sign of emotional trigger. So, step one is to calm the emotional reaction so that scientific observation and debate can actually happen.
Globe deniers are challenging the claim that we live on a spinning ball. They are looking for the proof of the claim, and challenging the sources of the claim. There is nothing wrong with asking the claimant to prove the claim... it is, in fact, the scientific thing to do.
Any involved man or woman in the experiments or the debate on the validity of data or interpretation of data will do well to ask themselves: Who will I be if it turns out that the globe claim is disproved/proved? Will I be basically the same person or will my head explode and my heart stop beating? You get the picture: face the existential crisis head on and observe that you can still exist even if a worldview is challenged.
Truth cannot be found if there is an emotional/financial/other attachment to proving an outcome. Challenging this world view is not a threat to an individual's life and there is no need to insult those who challenge the claim. This is how science works. Theories are challenged. Yes, we all like Star Trek and Space Balls, but what Bill is asking for is methods, so we have to be careful not to shut down due to our emotional reaction to having our world view challenged. Emotional reactions have no place in scientific inquiry.
Although we know we do not perceive all that is, we can respect that what we do observe is valid, and when we get a group of others together, who have the same sensory equipment and who can agree upon the methods to observe, who run their independent experiments and who then come together to compare outcomes, we can discover then what observations can actually be verified. All the while we choose to remain open to the possibility that the agreed upon methods had limitations and may have been incomplete.
We must remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Those who challenge the claim have every right to disqualify instruments of measurement/observation touted as proof, as well as to challenge the conclusions drawn from experiments.
It is also important to accept the possibility that we cannot know the ultimate reality, while attempting to know that which we can observe and repeat using the scientific method.
Finally, disproving the globe claim does not mean that it has to be replaced by a different theory. These are two separate conversations. We have a limitation in modern culture in that we want everything to be presented to us neatly with a bow on top. This is not how science works. Science is about disproving theories using valid methods in hopes of getting closer to the truth.
Side note: GPS might be referring to "Ground" Positioning System which is connecting, with radio waves, to ground based towers and extended through a network of satellite balloons positioned via triangulation. Name calling a pilot who has a different world view, and believes she has evidence to support it, is an example of acting out as a result of emotional trigger that we should attempt to quiet if we wish to seek the truth. A mind that is open to scientific inquiry would be interested and open to ask questions to understand further her proposed evidence that the realm is not a ball. Granted, that is not what this comment thread is for, it is simply to discuss methods, but this interactions demonstrates what I mentioned about emotional reactions that we should all carefully observe and quiet in ourselves if we wish to seek the truth.
The sun is far smaller and far closer than the main stream “93 million miles” canard. In order to understand this, you must unlearn mainstream’s explanation about the way light travels through the universe. There is no space and the sun’s light does not travel through a vacuum. The sun simply moves much too far away to provide any light and this happens with any other light source you move away from; its called PERSPECTIVE.
STEP 1: make a scale map with accurate distances on it
STEP 2: compare distances on map to the real world.
Obviously the globe earth map should be a globe and the flat earth map should be flat. Neither should have any distortions given that they are both scale replicas of the globe/ flat earth that they represent.
Globe Earthers have already made a globe map (anyone can buy a physical globe map or just use google earth). It's now up to Flat Earthers to produce a flat earth map to scale so that distances on a flat earth model can be measured and checked against the real world. If flat earthers can't produce a scale map of a flat earth then they don't even have a theory (a scientific theory must be predictive and therefore falsifiable).
"I am asking that we first establish a FRAMEWORK for HOW both sides can agree on what the right answer is."
The only framework needed is the distances between cities / countries on Earth. You can't argue with basic distances. The distances between, say, Paris and Sydney on a flat earth would be vastly different to the distance on a globe model.
The easiest way to disprove a globe would be to measure that distance.... and to produce a flat earth map to scale with all the flat earth distances on it.
If you were going to have a debate between flat earth THEORY and globe earth THEORY then you would have to have each side present their THEORY. They have to therefore HAVE a theory to begin with.
In order to qualify as a THEORY it must be able to PREDICT reality (nature) ... which in this case is the distances between various cities on Earth. The most logical way of displaying those distances is on a scale model. Naturally a scale model of a globe is a small globe (and we already have plenty of them) and the scale model of a flat earth is small flat 'floor plan' (a map). So far nobody has produced one of those.
A theory must be FALSIFIABLE (otherwise it's a religion and not a theory) and the way to falsify a flat or globe Earth theory is to compare the scale model (the theory's prediction) with the actual distances in real life (in nature).
So in our debate each side would produce their scale model (as predicted by their theory) and they would show it to everyone to have a good look at. And they might say a few words about it. Then they would show us the distances between various places on their scale model and we could all go out and measure them in real life to see if they are right or not. That's the only sensible framework for a debate.
With sunrise and sunset we can observe half of the sun visible, that would not be possible on a flat earth.
The are many locations where you can see the curvature with your own eyes like in this video: https://youtu.be/IxF7uvYemsM?t=1438 the rest of the video excludes that a fish eye or other non regular lens is used. And this guy just wanted to shoot a nice video of his holiday and is not trying to prove anything.
There is a lot of manipulated 'evidence' shared by the FE community.
Look what happens when you zoom into the sunset where half the sun appears to be hidden over the horizon (with binoculars or camera): https://youtu.be/r7ftNrTCBBw
What manipulated evidence? Why would anyone manipulate evidence on our side when we are merely seeking the truth?? Mainstream science has all the incentives to lie: $$$ and keeping people confused. Here are a few videos which explain the sun and perspective.
YOU CANNOT SEE HALF THE SUN!!! This merely an illusion! It’s called “perspective”! This is something that’s so easy to demonstrate, it’s shocking to hear something so idiotic from smart people. Watch this please: https://youtu.be/argqw0OD-0Y
More nonsense; the arc comes from the distance away path of the sun. Around the equator you will see the sun drop almost vertically behind the horizon.
On a flat earth the sun would get smaller and smaller until it would optically disappear in the vanishing point (perspective), but it is so bright that you would see it 24/7 and it never be dark or night'.
I understand there are plenty of 'flat' maps which you can fold up and put into your pocket for convenience, but those are *projections* of a globe, mapped in 2D for convenience. I'm talking about an actual scale map of a flat earth with NO distortions (no projection).
Basically flat earthers need to provide a scale model of a flat earth, which is what a flat earth map would be. To date nobody has provided one which is why FE does not yet qualify as a theory.
The distances used by airlines, shipping, freight, truck drivers, surveyors, hikers, dog walkers etc are all based on the globe earth maps which have been consistent for centuries. Even the pyramids of Giza encode the precise measurements of the globe earth model, including the 26 mile bulge at the equator.
Here's a 2 part explanation of how the pyramids encode the currently accepted globe earth model.
If globe earth model is wrong then distances between, say, Sydney and Johannesburg or Johannesburg to Paris will be all wrong. This would be easy to demonstrate (much easier than arguments based on optical phenomena).
So the best way to disprove globe earth model is to measure the distances between different cities and prove the official distances wrong ...... and come up with a flat earth map with different distances on it and then prove those distances to be right.
>I’m a pilot. We DO NOT adjust our flights for a curvature.
What you are saying is COMPLETE NONSENSE.
If you are a pilot in the United States, or almost anywhere in the world, you will be using GPS Waypoints in both your flight plan, and when speaking with ATC.
It's now 3rd week of August and no new comments since 1st week of April. Have you, Bill, come up with a set of guidelines for resolving this thorny issue?
I know you don't want arguments but I'd like to pose this concept: Water takes the shape of the container. We can agree on that surely? It also has a flat surface for the same reason, so a lake observed from shore to shore must, ipso facto be flat, level. The one ocean, many seas, being one gigantic container can't maintain it's flatness because for want of the proper scientific term; sloshing. Taking measurements or making observations across the oceans would be necessarily fraught with many imponderables.
I'm intrigued by the Tycho Brahe ideas, much to think about and may fit in with the Thunderbolts of the God's, Electric Universe concept, including Mars as the god of war, Venus as a recent interloper and that possibly Jupiter was a sun for some time before Sol 'turned on' and Jupiter 'turned off.' Much to think about.
An Australian deep water sailor said sailors use spherical trigonometry when plotting a course after taking a sun sighting. Why?
From past experiences with "skeptics, Inc.", I noticed that preaches in epistemology are intended for the other side, not the preacher's. They are an idealized structure of one's line of argument. At least your framework is minimal. But even then, a sophist can escape. Worse, paradigm shifts may justifyably need a shift in method. That's why there was someone named Feyerabend who argued "Against Method".
Pandelis, I am deleting your comment as OFF TOPIC: (Trump knows that there are aliens)
hey bill -
here is an idea for you ... plenty of rumours about it, from trump to everyone else in his administration ... as the saying goes, where is smoke there is fire ... just sayin'
Friends, OFF TOPIC comments will be deleted.
Please stay ON POINT to the questions I raised. Thank you.
Definition of terms and definitions to start with. Also, people who have different opinions about stuff like this might not be antagonistic enemies and this type of disagreement should not mean that people cannot work together for other shared goals.
Discussion about how the debate will be conducted, the rules, etc. should be discussed before hand.
Thanks. This is the first comment I've read so far that comes close to addressing the questions I raised.
Let's sit a Flat Earther in a room, and ask: How do you know the shape of the earth?
How do you know what you know? Is it based in sound science, and reason? or belief in a Holy Book? If we were to sit you in a room with a Globe Earther, what kind of evidence or logical argument would you be demanding from them? Can both side construct a COMMON FRAMEWORK for establishing proof?
Now let;s do the same thing with a Globe Earther. Ask the same questions (substituting roles).
Im not a framework would be possible. I personally have no idea which is correct, but the issue will always be where the information used in the framework has come from and whether or not it can be trusted. The answer to this question only really matters to those who want to control us anyway. If someone wants to live their life by a flat earth and therefor discount/ignore any directives from any government on this basis, that should be their right to do so, as it it should be with those that do not believe in viruses to do the same.
> Im not (sure?) a (common?) framework would be possible.
Hmmm. I hadn't thought this through, but you might be right, if each side has a different standard for evidence, logic, and proof.
>that should be their right to do so
Sure, but we have a curious situation today.
People saying SCIENCE says Yes Virus, and some SCIENCE says No Virus.
Then we have other people claiming SCIENCE says Globe Earth, and some SCIENCE says Flat Earth.
It seems we should be able to construct a common framework for solving BOTH.
In the case of virology, it's the Scientific Method. a very rigorous standard of proof.
Now what about Flat vs Globe Earth?
Is it possible for us to create a testable, falsifiable hypotheses to prove a Globe Earth?
Thanks for your corrections Bill, you corrected me correctly 😁. That's a fair point about virology but globe earth is a harder one to prove. I think, if they took Steve Falconer and myself to their space station for a few hours, that should solve the whole thing, right? He's a nailed on flat earther and I'm an interested sceptic so there shouldn't be any bias.
A big concern with many is trusting the source of some information, many believe that almost all the information received about space is second hand. So verifying the validity of the information source will be tricky.
"Both sides should agree upon the trust of the evidence provided. "
FANTASTIC! I think we have our first, elucidated plank of the common framework.
What else?
This is actually really simple. The diameter of the earth is 8000 miles which means, as a spherical globe, the earth must curve at 8 inches per miles squared. Place an object on the ground that you know is 10 miles away from where you are standing. (Maybe on the the other side of a lake that you know is 10 miles) At 10 miles, the curvature should be 0.01263 miles and that object should be hidden by 66.69 feet of curvature. Use a camera like a Nikon p-1000 which allows you to zoom in to that object that is 10 miles away....IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND SEE IT WITH YOUR CAMERA, THERE IS NO CURVE. (Unless of course the earth is much larger). Remember, cameras see in straight lines just as the human eye; they cannot magically see over curves.
WARNING!
You are not following the rules as I prescribed. You are arguing one side or the other. That is not the purpose of this post!
I'm trying to establish a FRAMEWORK that we all can agree to use to decide this question once and for all.
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR ANY SIDE. This is a repeatable experiment that anyone can do!! Repeatable experiments are necessary components of scientific qualification. Your requirements are not merely pointless but completely unnecessary when the results of this one experiment is irrefutable scientific evidence.
You missing the point.
I want to establish an EPISTIMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK for how both sides can agree. This could apply to Flat Earth vs Globe, or Vax vs No Virus, or any subject.
I want to discuss science and logic. I want to talk about the Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. I want to talk about falsifiable hypotheses, and possible limitations on the scope of applicibility of the Scientific Method.
What KIND of proof or argument is required?
And what does proof mean?
I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO ANY DETAILS about curvature or discuss taking measurements, at this point. We are not there yet. WE FIRST need to get both sides to agree as to what EVIDENCE or LOGICAL ARGUMENT would be necessary to get you to rethink the position that you currently hold?
If we don't do this first, then we are never going to have a productive debate or investigation.
Does that make sense?
If the object placed 10 miles away is obstructed by curvature the experiment proves there is a curve!! How is this experiment one sided?
There's one thing I forgot to mention in this article:
I'm not saying that if we have a case where the scientific method it's outside of its scope of applicability, that we have to throw science away at that point as a useful tool for analysis.
While the scientific method provides a very high standard of proof, it is not our only tool at our disposal for rational inquiry.
The very essence of science is empirical. Empiricism is something that you do with your eyes and your ears and your senses. Empiricism involves an experience of our 4D cause-effect phenomenal reality.
Science is also LOGIC. It is applied reason.
The essence of science is thus:
a) Careful Observation, and b) Applied Reason.
So even if we have one of the many well-known cases which are outside the scope of applicability of the scientific method (untestable hypothesis, dealing with long time scales, situations in the past, one-time events, things dealing with extreme scales of Mass or Distance), we can still observe and reason. We can build predictive models and measure for accuracy.
Reality as it can be observed and perceived through our own senses has to be our starting point, which is my cosmology is founded on a stationary Earth with Luminaries rotating in a sky clock above us.
How can both sides get together and decide TOGETHER which side is correct?
What FRAMEWORK of EVIDENCE, Logic, and proof are required by each side?
I decided some time ago that reality exists in nature and human interactions. Everything else is part of the "Simulation", and should be treated as such.
It seems to me that you can use the scientific method to answer this question- that is, you can see which hypothesis best explains observable regularities in nature. The main difference from other branches of science is that these regularities - seasons, sunsets, the diurnal cycle etc generally speak for themselves and don't usually require experimentation to make them plain.
In short... Method: Scientific Method with agreed upon instruments/approach/methods.
General Approach: Open Inquiry
Some caveats:
Any discussion regarding data, claimed evidence and/or experiments is approached with impartial scientific exploration, a willingness to agree upon methodology for each experiment, and a willingness to throw out data that those who refute a claim do not agree are valid. All involved in the pursuit of truth are willing to abandon previous bias and understandings. An openness to alternate interpretations of data are necessary and an understanding that interpretation of data is not necessarily scientific, but rather, may be speculative based on ideas or world views that may not be validated (circular reasoning). Get to know what logical fallacies are and how to avoid them.
So, if we truly desire to seek the truth, or at least a layer of truth, we can begin with our sensory perception and then step our way out to instruments that have been validated by both parties, the claimant and the challenger. The methodology that can be agreed upon is basic, observable, repeatable scientific method.
The noteworthy challenge of this process of making discoveries about our Realm is that simply challenging the globe theory can provoked emotional reactions in some people, most typically anger. Those who believe in the validity of the claim that our realm is a spinning globe have *faith* that really smart people working for NASA and other "space" agencies have already done the basic science to prove the claim. Those who believe that we live on a globe have often not questioned the validity of what they have been taught and react with anger, likely because they do not think that they should have to validate that information for themselves. They want to "trust the experts". This emotional charge is a major block that prevents civil discourse and scientific debate...and always leads to name calling - an obvious sign of emotional trigger. So, step one is to calm the emotional reaction so that scientific observation and debate can actually happen.
Globe deniers are challenging the claim that we live on a spinning ball. They are looking for the proof of the claim, and challenging the sources of the claim. There is nothing wrong with asking the claimant to prove the claim... it is, in fact, the scientific thing to do.
Any involved man or woman in the experiments or the debate on the validity of data or interpretation of data will do well to ask themselves: Who will I be if it turns out that the globe claim is disproved/proved? Will I be basically the same person or will my head explode and my heart stop beating? You get the picture: face the existential crisis head on and observe that you can still exist even if a worldview is challenged.
Truth cannot be found if there is an emotional/financial/other attachment to proving an outcome. Challenging this world view is not a threat to an individual's life and there is no need to insult those who challenge the claim. This is how science works. Theories are challenged. Yes, we all like Star Trek and Space Balls, but what Bill is asking for is methods, so we have to be careful not to shut down due to our emotional reaction to having our world view challenged. Emotional reactions have no place in scientific inquiry.
Although we know we do not perceive all that is, we can respect that what we do observe is valid, and when we get a group of others together, who have the same sensory equipment and who can agree upon the methods to observe, who run their independent experiments and who then come together to compare outcomes, we can discover then what observations can actually be verified. All the while we choose to remain open to the possibility that the agreed upon methods had limitations and may have been incomplete.
We must remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant. Those who challenge the claim have every right to disqualify instruments of measurement/observation touted as proof, as well as to challenge the conclusions drawn from experiments.
It is also important to accept the possibility that we cannot know the ultimate reality, while attempting to know that which we can observe and repeat using the scientific method.
Finally, disproving the globe claim does not mean that it has to be replaced by a different theory. These are two separate conversations. We have a limitation in modern culture in that we want everything to be presented to us neatly with a bow on top. This is not how science works. Science is about disproving theories using valid methods in hopes of getting closer to the truth.
Side note: GPS might be referring to "Ground" Positioning System which is connecting, with radio waves, to ground based towers and extended through a network of satellite balloons positioned via triangulation. Name calling a pilot who has a different world view, and believes she has evidence to support it, is an example of acting out as a result of emotional trigger that we should attempt to quiet if we wish to seek the truth. A mind that is open to scientific inquiry would be interested and open to ask questions to understand further her proposed evidence that the realm is not a ball. Granted, that is not what this comment thread is for, it is simply to discuss methods, but this interactions demonstrates what I mentioned about emotional reactions that we should all carefully observe and quiet in ourselves if we wish to seek the truth.
Explain why a particular model does not make sense, i.e. independently verifiable empirical facts which do not fit with it.
There's many things to question but the one that takes the cake is questioning how the sun is invisible to a part of the world on flat earth.
The light geometry is impossible. I cannot seem to get this explained by my friend who believes in fe.
https://youtu.be/q4u4N-GWfXI
The sun is far smaller and far closer than the main stream “93 million miles” canard. In order to understand this, you must unlearn mainstream’s explanation about the way light travels through the universe. There is no space and the sun’s light does not travel through a vacuum. The sun simply moves much too far away to provide any light and this happens with any other light source you move away from; its called PERSPECTIVE.
Because why? How are you sure of that being real?
Let's talk and find the truth.
Absolutely!
STEP 1: make a scale map with accurate distances on it
STEP 2: compare distances on map to the real world.
Obviously the globe earth map should be a globe and the flat earth map should be flat. Neither should have any distortions given that they are both scale replicas of the globe/ flat earth that they represent.
Globe Earthers have already made a globe map (anyone can buy a physical globe map or just use google earth). It's now up to Flat Earthers to produce a flat earth map to scale so that distances on a flat earth model can be measured and checked against the real world. If flat earthers can't produce a scale map of a flat earth then they don't even have a theory (a scientific theory must be predictive and therefore falsifiable).
You are getting into the details of the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth debate.
I am asking that we first establish a FRAMEWORK for HOW both sides can agree on what the right answer is.
I am asking: WHAT IS PROOF? What does it mean to Prove something?
What GENERAL kind of evidence or logical argument might cause a flat-earther to change sides, OR a Globe Earther to change sides?
"I am asking that we first establish a FRAMEWORK for HOW both sides can agree on what the right answer is."
The only framework needed is the distances between cities / countries on Earth. You can't argue with basic distances. The distances between, say, Paris and Sydney on a flat earth would be vastly different to the distance on a globe model.
The easiest way to disprove a globe would be to measure that distance.... and to produce a flat earth map to scale with all the flat earth distances on it.
No. You are getting into the details of the debate. You are not understanding my question.
If you were going to have a debate between flat earth THEORY and globe earth THEORY then you would have to have each side present their THEORY. They have to therefore HAVE a theory to begin with.
In order to qualify as a THEORY it must be able to PREDICT reality (nature) ... which in this case is the distances between various cities on Earth. The most logical way of displaying those distances is on a scale model. Naturally a scale model of a globe is a small globe (and we already have plenty of them) and the scale model of a flat earth is small flat 'floor plan' (a map). So far nobody has produced one of those.
A theory must be FALSIFIABLE (otherwise it's a religion and not a theory) and the way to falsify a flat or globe Earth theory is to compare the scale model (the theory's prediction) with the actual distances in real life (in nature).
So in our debate each side would produce their scale model (as predicted by their theory) and they would show it to everyone to have a good look at. And they might say a few words about it. Then they would show us the distances between various places on their scale model and we could all go out and measure them in real life to see if they are right or not. That's the only sensible framework for a debate.
The Gleason flat earth map was considered accurate and to scale in the 1890’s by most scholars; btw hundreds of years after the Copernicum Revolution.
That is not to only to scale but also uses a projection (deformation), look at how Australia is stretched on the Gleason map.
If earth was flat, you would only need a scale. But that map does not exist as it can't be made.
The most accurate map, with the least deformation due to a projection, is this one: https://www.livescience.com/pancake-earth-flat-map.html
With sunrise and sunset we can observe half of the sun visible, that would not be possible on a flat earth.
The are many locations where you can see the curvature with your own eyes like in this video: https://youtu.be/IxF7uvYemsM?t=1438 the rest of the video excludes that a fish eye or other non regular lens is used. And this guy just wanted to shoot a nice video of his holiday and is not trying to prove anything.
There is a lot of manipulated 'evidence' shared by the FE community.
Look what happens when you zoom into the sunset where half the sun appears to be hidden over the horizon (with binoculars or camera): https://youtu.be/r7ftNrTCBBw
Nonsense, this will only happen when the camera is moved up and down at the same time like in several FE fake videos.
And why isn't the sun getting larger when zoomed in in this video?
Real sunset:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkQhQ47CiYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2pu_xhBnzY
and sunrise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W83Tpo_NwIE
Clearly the sun is going behind the horizon and zooming in will just make the sun and distance to the horizon bigger.
You can test this for yourself when you see half of the sun: don't be fooled.
What manipulated evidence? Why would anyone manipulate evidence on our side when we are merely seeking the truth?? Mainstream science has all the incentives to lie: $$$ and keeping people confused. Here are a few videos which explain the sun and perspective.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyHwsN1Rg4IqA_ZqjXvtHsjLlksN_CS8u
Perspective just makes things closer to the vanishing point small.
These FE video are bunk but show half of the sun....
FE is a hoax to obfuscate the geocentric globe lie and make the real truthers look like idiots.
YOU CANNOT SEE HALF THE SUN!!! This merely an illusion! It’s called “perspective”! This is something that’s so easy to demonstrate, it’s shocking to hear something so idiotic from smart people. Watch this please: https://youtu.be/argqw0OD-0Y
More nonsense; the arc comes from the distance away path of the sun. Around the equator you will see the sun drop almost vertically behind the horizon.
On a flat earth the sun would get smaller and smaller until it would optically disappear in the vanishing point (perspective), but it is so bright that you would see it 24/7 and it never be dark or night'.
You can see half of the sun in earlier posted video links and here are many pictures https://duckduckgo.com/?q=half+sun+set
But go out in the morning or evening and have a look for yourself instead of living in a virtual reality and take your zoom camera with you.
I mean a scale map of a flat earth.
I understand there are plenty of 'flat' maps which you can fold up and put into your pocket for convenience, but those are *projections* of a globe, mapped in 2D for convenience. I'm talking about an actual scale map of a flat earth with NO distortions (no projection).
Basically flat earthers need to provide a scale model of a flat earth, which is what a flat earth map would be. To date nobody has provided one which is why FE does not yet qualify as a theory.
The distances used by airlines, shipping, freight, truck drivers, surveyors, hikers, dog walkers etc are all based on the globe earth maps which have been consistent for centuries. Even the pyramids of Giza encode the precise measurements of the globe earth model, including the 26 mile bulge at the equator.
Here's a 2 part explanation of how the pyramids encode the currently accepted globe earth model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H43z2xAis4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMH8X6f0ek8
If globe earth model is wrong then distances between, say, Sydney and Johannesburg or Johannesburg to Paris will be all wrong. This would be easy to demonstrate (much easier than arguments based on optical phenomena).
So the best way to disprove globe earth model is to measure the distances between different cities and prove the official distances wrong ...... and come up with a flat earth map with different distances on it and then prove those distances to be right.
>I’m a pilot. We DO NOT adjust our flights for a curvature.
What you are saying is COMPLETE NONSENSE.
If you are a pilot in the United States, or almost anywhere in the world, you will be using GPS Waypoints in both your flight plan, and when speaking with ATC.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/Loc_ID_Search/Fixes_Waypoints/
These Waypoints are based on WGS84, a 3D Globe Earth Geodetic Model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#WGS84
If you are going to spout nonsense, I'm going to ban your from my site.
I don't like banning people, but what you are saying is ridiculous.
I seriously doubt that you are a pilot. Pilots MUST UNDERSTAND THIS in order to Navigate.
Pilots who do not understand how navigate according to a Global Coordinates GET LOST and become accident statistics.
That's what I'm asking you to do, Charlotte. GET LOST.
Do you use GPS?
How would you adjust flights for curvature?
It's now 3rd week of August and no new comments since 1st week of April. Have you, Bill, come up with a set of guidelines for resolving this thorny issue?
I know you don't want arguments but I'd like to pose this concept: Water takes the shape of the container. We can agree on that surely? It also has a flat surface for the same reason, so a lake observed from shore to shore must, ipso facto be flat, level. The one ocean, many seas, being one gigantic container can't maintain it's flatness because for want of the proper scientific term; sloshing. Taking measurements or making observations across the oceans would be necessarily fraught with many imponderables.
I'm intrigued by the Tycho Brahe ideas, much to think about and may fit in with the Thunderbolts of the God's, Electric Universe concept, including Mars as the god of war, Venus as a recent interloper and that possibly Jupiter was a sun for some time before Sol 'turned on' and Jupiter 'turned off.' Much to think about.
An Australian deep water sailor said sailors use spherical trigonometry when plotting a course after taking a sun sighting. Why?
"stated another way:
Are there well-known limitations to the Scientific Method which rule it out as a tool of inquiry in this case?"
No, the scientific method works fine.
I have debunked all FE 'evidence' in many discussions I had with the FE believers.
But they do have a good point with the universe being geocentric instead of heliocentric!
Before the current heliocentric lie, the geocentric globe was the mainstream idea. Copernicus was from the hidden hand or pyramid club.
Geocentric Tycho Brahe vs heliocentric model of our solarsystem:
Ep123 The TYCHOS: Simon Shack and Patrik Holmqvist discuss a more credible model of our solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V09MasmKxOY
Ep 154 The TYCHOS model of our Solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU7Uo4JBePM
TYCHOS part 2 - Why stellar parallax falsifies the conventional Copernican model of the solar system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QRCn_Ny1Q
Free book + working model: https://www.tychos.space/
From past experiences with "skeptics, Inc.", I noticed that preaches in epistemology are intended for the other side, not the preacher's. They are an idealized structure of one's line of argument. At least your framework is minimal. But even then, a sophist can escape. Worse, paradigm shifts may justifyably need a shift in method. That's why there was someone named Feyerabend who argued "Against Method".
Pandelis, I am deleting your comment as OFF TOPIC: (Trump knows that there are aliens)
hey bill -
here is an idea for you ... plenty of rumours about it, from trump to everyone else in his administration ... as the saying goes, where is smoke there is fire ... just sayin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6iE62jovMo
sorry you feel this way ... i thought was relevant. however, it is your substack i understand. good luck!