---

Issue

Reader, much of what passes for science in our era is really not science at all, but rather, the logical outcome of an atheistic worldview largely (although not exclusively) originating with heliocentrism. As such, with the possible exception of chemistry (and most of its subdisciplines but not biochemistry) and the interdisciplinary field of engineering science, the other major physical sciences — astronomy, physics, geology, and biology — as well as the major social sciences — psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and political science — are steeped in paradigms and dogmas that reflect that atheistic worldview, notwithstanding the obvious progress that has been made in such fields. The fact of the matter is that the heliocentric and (by subsumption) evolutionistic dogmas within those sciences represent a veritable fifth column, adding absolutely nothing to the existing body of practical knowledge, but assuredly impeding and ultimately limiting further substantive progress thereto.

In recent years, challenges to the heliocentric world view have been either censored outright or presented with a caveat that belies the intelligence of the public. A prime example of the latter is the caveat (the content of which is extracted from a Wikipedia article) that used to appear (checked June 5, 2023) under every YouTube video pertaining to the flat earth:

Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography. The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in ancient Greek philosophy with Pythagoras. However, most pre-Socratics retained the flat-Earth model.

More recently (checked December 21, 2023), that caveat reads as follows:

Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography. The model has undergone a recent resurgence as a conspiracy theory. The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in ancient Greek philosophy with Pythagoras.

A similar type caveat appears under YouTube videos that question the (Stanley Kubrick) moon landing.¹

For an in-depth coverage of the extent to which wayward scientific dogma and scientism had all but eclipsed real science by the early twenty-first century, we highly recommend the book by Paul & Phillip Collins titled, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.²

The purpose of this web page is to briefly clarify for the reader, the ontological difference between science and scientism, thereby enabling the reader to (a) question (i.e., fact check) or (more appropriately) categorically reject scientific knowlege (so-called) that is inherently outside the purview of the scientific method, and (b) recognize that highly technical language and mathematical analyses often obsfuscate the errors in theories otherwise being claimed as scientific fact.

---

Science: The Scientific Method

The scientific method is depicted in Figure 1 below, the deductive logic aspect of which in this case, is applied to three hypotheses concerning the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.

Figure 1. The scientific method applied to the question of the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface.³ (Note: Mobile device users can scroll this flowchart horizontally.)

Block 1: Conduct Multiple Observations of a Phenomenon of Interest Related to the Shape or Large-Scale Structure of the Earth’s Surface — The particular phenomenon related to the large-scale structure of the earth’s surface that is being emphasized in this website is the visibility of distant structures, marine vessels, and seascape or landscape features at distances that should be impossible under the spheroidal model — even if maximum (alleged) tropo[spheric] refraction is factored into the calculations. The basic equations for determining the observer’s distance from the horizon and the magnitude of (alleged) obscurement of a distant structure or terrestrial feature (in whole or in part) based on its distance (allegedly) below and normal to the observer’s or optical instrument’s (alleged) horizon line of sight, are derived under the CURVATURE section — see our web page titled, Purpose and Overview of the (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth Curvature Analysis; mean and maximum tropo[spheric] refraction values and effective earth radii under the spheroidal earth paradigm for both optical and radar (or RF) frequencies are provided under the REFRACTION section — see our web page titled, Refraction Overview; and finally, javascript calculators are provided in the CALCULATORS section for observation analyses — see our web page titled, Introduction to the (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth Calculators.

Block 2: Review the Existing Literature (Historical and Current) Pertinent to the Large-Scale Structure of the Earth’s Surface — Examples: The classic presentation of the planar earth paradigm extensively covering the visibility of distant structures (and in this case, particularly lighthouses), is of course, the book titled, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (who wrote under the nom de plume known as “Parallax”).⁴ Currently, the website Beyond Horizons⁵ specializing in long-distance landscape photography, provides a plehtora of excellent photographs suggestive of the paradigm expoused here, notwithstanding that any debate over the shape of the earth appears to be outside the putative scope of that website.

Block 3: Ask a Key Question Concerning the Large-Scale Structure of the Earth’s Surface — In terms of affirming the planar earth paradigm, the key question is actually a two-part question: (a) Given the anaytical method for determining the (alleged) long-distance visibility limits of a structure or terrestrial feature under maximum tropo[spheric] refraction as objectively demonstrated on our web page titled, (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth Calculator III: w/ Maximum Tropo[spheric] Optical Refraction, and in consideration of the subject of observation’s height above mean sea level, what observed fraction of the predicted obscurement of the subject of observation (as determined by its calculated distance below and normal to the observer’s horizon line of sight) would suffice for questioning the veracity of the current paradigm, and (b) how many geographically disparate observations meeting whatever requirement is deemed to be adequate in respect of (a), would suffice for a shift to the planar earth paradigm?

Block 4: Begin Hypothesis X (Established Hypothesis) Spheroidal Earth Heliocentrism — The earth is a diurnally rotating spheroid, elliptically orbiting a much larger, distant sun annually in a universe of indeterminate size and age, many orders of magnitude beyond that of the earth. The origins of heliocentrism in the West go back about 2,500 years. As stated on our webpage titled, Hellenistic Greece I: Aristarchus (c. 310–c. 230 B.C.):

While heliocentrism (at least in the West) is generally attributed to Pythagoras of Samos (c. 569–c. 475 B.C.), prime sources in support of that attribution are nonextant.⁶ The first, essential (but nonetheless sophistical) heliocentric model (although again, not based on prime sources) is historically attributed to Aristarchus of Samos (c. 310–c. 230 B.C.). [...]

The reader is encourage to review the web pages listed under the HISTORY section that have been completed (see our web page titled, Historical Conspectus).

Block 5: Deductive Logic What can be predicted from Hypothesis X? On a rotating spheroid, world aviation would be impossible due to the spheroid’s latitudinally dependent tangential velocity. The impossibility of world aviation on a rotating sphere or spheroid is rigorously demonstrated on our web page titled, Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

Block 6: End Hypothesis X — Based upon the above (i.e., Block 5) easily deduced prediction or consequence of Hypothesis X in terms of the (alleged) rotation of the earth, the rigorous demonstration of that consequence on our web page titled, Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth, and the fact that the consequence does not actually occur, Hypothesis X, i.e., heliocentrism, can be dismissed from further scientific inquiry. Hence, the promotion or propagandization of heliocentrism using adjunctive theories and mathematical analyses to fudge ephemerides and other putatively authoritative documents, is pure scientism.

Block 7: Begin Hypothesis Y (Hybrid Hypothesis) Spheroidal Earth Geocentrism — The earth is an immovable spheroid diurnally orbited by a much larger, distant sun, as well as by a universe of indeterminate size and age many orders of magnitude beyond that of the earth. To understand the profound issues with this hypothesis, the reader is advised to review our web page titled, Nota Bene: The Fallacy of Spheroidal Earth Geocentrism.

Block 8: Deductive Logic What can be predicted from Hypothesis Y? On the basis of the cosmological distances adopted from the heliocentric paradigm, a diurnally rotating universe would necessarily imply superluminal velocities otherwise precluded by the special theory of relativity (also adopted from the heliocentric paradigm). Hypothesis Y is a perfect example of the error in trying to maintain selective attributes of a competing theory in a situation where the primary attributes of each theory are ontologically exclusive of the other.

Block 9: End Hypothesis Y — Based upon the above (i.e., Block 8) easily deduced prediction or consequence of Hypothesis Y in terms of the necessarily superluminal tangential velocity of a rotating universe of otherwise heliocentric proportions, not to mention the additional theoretical incongruity involving yet another selected but ontologically exclusive attribute from heliocentrism — that of adopting the standard spheroidal rather than spherical earth, given that the earth’s (alleged) spheroidicity results from its (alleged) diurnal rotation (see our web page titled, The Early Modern Period: Copernicus to Newton (1543–1726) and again, our web page titled, Nota Bene: The Fallacy of Spheroidal Earth Geocentrism) — then, as in the case of Hypothesis X (i.e., spheroidal earth heliocentrism), Hypothesis Y (i.e., spheroidal earth geocentrism) falls into scientism and can be dismissed from further scientific inquiry.

Block 10: Begin Hypothesis Z (Alternative Hypothesis) Planar Earth Geocentrism — The earth is an immovable, foundationally-supported, plane enclosed by a vaulted firmament within which resides a much smaller, near sun and universe of a determinate, terrestrial order of magnitude, diurnally orbiting the earth. The best description of planar earth geocentrism is contained within the Holy Bible, some relevant versus of which can be reviewed on our web page titled, Part C: Bible Verses Confirming Planar Earth Geocentrism.

Block 11: Deductive Logic — What can be predicted from Hypothesis Z? On a planer (as opposed to spheroidal) surface of the earth, an observer would be able to see (in whole or in part) islands, promontories, hills or mountains, marine vessels, marine or shoreline structures, or land structures, at distances that would be impossible under the spheroidal model — even accounting for maximum (alleged) tropo[spheric] refraction. (The reader is advised to review the above descriptions of Block 1, Block 2, and Block 3 and their associated links.)

Block 12: Designed Experiment (repeatable) to test Hypothesis Z — The experiment in this case, is simply to obtain observable confirmation (by photograph or video) of a distant structure or landscape feature located at a specific distance from the observer. The following two design parameters are reiterated from Block 3 above:

In terms of affirming the planar earth paradigm, the key question is actually a two-part question: (a) Given the anaytical method for determining the (alleged) long-distance visibility limits of a structure or terrestrial feature under maximum tropo[spheric] refraction as objectively demonstrated on our web page titled, (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth Calculator III: w/ Maximum Tropo[spheric] Optical Refraction, and in consideration of the subject of observation’s height above mean sea level, what observed fraction of the predicted obscurement of the subject of observation (as determined by its calculated distance below and normal to the observer’s horizon line of sight) would suffice for questioning the veracity of the current paradigm, and (b) how many geographically disparate observations meeting whatever requirement is deemed to be adequate in respect of (a) would suffice for a shift to the planar earth paradigm?

For a single experimental observation involving a specific distant subject, the design issue is not only that of selecting the actual subject in terms of its height or elevation, but also the location of the observer in terms of the observer’s elevation and distance from the subject. In designing an observational experiment, the reader is advised to follow the procedure described on our web page titled, Introduction to the (Allegedly Spheroidal) Earth Calculators (specifically, under the subsection title Planar Earth Field Observations) and to run some hypothetical calulations using the javascript calculators provided on our subsequent web pages under the CALCULATORS section.

Bock 13a: New Data — The new data generated from the experimentally-designed obervation of a specifically selected subject could be in support of statistically significant confirmation of either (i) previous experimentally-designed observations of the same subject, or (ii) the underlying principle based on the existing aggregate of disparatey located experimentally-designed observations.

Block 13b: Existing Data — As indicated in Block 13a above, the existing data is (i) any available data from previous experimentally-designed observations of the same subject, or (ii) the existing aggregate of disparately located experimental-designed observations.

Block 14: Inductive Logic and Statistical Analysis — As stated by Gauch:

[...] Besides the new data being generated in the current experiment, ususally there are additional data available from previous research. A particular strength of Bayesian analysis is its explicit formalism for combining prior and new information in inductive inferences, ... [...] Good inductive methods will extract as much usable information from the data as possible, minimize distortions due to noise, and expose any problems that would indicate that new hypotheses and paradigms need to be considered.⁷

Block 15: Hypothesis Z Will Be Confirmed — It is clear that Hypothesis Z will be confirmed if only because out of the three hypotheses presented, it is the only hypothesis capable of surviving the kind of scrutiny imposed by the scientific method. It is that simple. That confirmation will be presented on our web page (in progress) titled, Spheroidal Earth Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Planar Earth, and its translations into Português, Español, and Galego on our web pages titled, Terra esferoidal refutada: prova experimental de uma terra plana, Tierra esferoidal refutada: prueba experimental de una tierra plana, and Terra esferoidal refutada: proba experimental dunha terra plana, respectively.

---

Scientism: The Unscientific Method

The word “scientism” is defined by the Funk & Wagnell’s Canadian College Dictionary as follows:

sci∙en∙tism (sī'ən∙tiz'əm) n. 1. Adherence to or belief in the aims and methods of scientists.  2. Uncritical or unsuitable application of scientific concepts and terms.⁸

It is particularly that second definition, i.e., the “[u]ncritical or unsuitable application of scientific concepts and terms,” that best describes the current state of affairs concerning heliocentrism, evolutionism, and other sophistical applications of “scientific concepts and terms.”

In the above application of the scientific method to the shape of the earth, the established hypothesis (i.e., Hypothesis X) and the hybrid hypothesis (i.e., Hypothesis Y) did not not survive their deduced consequences. Hence, both hypotheses are logically outside the realm of science — Hypothesis X because of a repeatable empirical contradiction, i.e., world aviation being impossible on a rotating sphere or spheroid with latitudinally varying tangential velocities; and Hypothesis Y because of an inherent absurdity, i.e., the necessarily superluminal tangential velcoities of a geocentric rotating universe of putatively heliocentric proportions.

Two major examples of the sophistical and scientistic assault on valid empirical science and common sense discused in this website are: (I) Einstein's failed refutation of the Michelson-Morely experiment (proving geocentrism) by proposing an impossible experiment to prove or disprove the aether — an experiment requiring an extraterrestrial frame of reference — see Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity Myth (1905); and (II) the evolutionary hypothesis attempting to account for the structure and function of the ribosome even though the ribosome itself is composed in part of proteins, the synthesis of which is its essential function — see Appendix II: Evolutionism Refuted by the Ribosome.

---

The Scientism of (Alleged) Magnetic Declination

Finally, the scientistic issue of (so-called) magnetic declination should be addressed. The credit for identifying the scientism of magnetic declination should be given to Hervé Riboni, who sailed the Southern Ocean as a participant in the 1993–1994 Whitbread Round the World Race aboard the yacht Merit Cup.^9,10 Based (in part) on his sailing experience across vast distances in the Southern Ocean and elsewhere, Riboni argues convincingly that the World Magnetic Model (subsuming magnetic declination) is a mathematical masterpiece contrived to enable correct air, land, and sea navigation using the otherwise false distorted spheroidal map of the world — the principal aspects of distortion being enlargement of the northern hemi[sphere] and shrinkage of the southern hemi[sphere] relative to their correct proportions on the planar or flat earth map of the world — adding that on the flat earth map (inaccessible to the public), the (singular) magnetic (so-called) pole would be coincident with the north geographic (so-called) pole directly under Polaris, the North Star.¹¹ Obviously, while a terrestrial magnetic field does in fact exist, its field lines would be uniformly distributed across the flat earth. Hence, magnetic declination is a scientistic contrivance enabling navigational efficacy and safety on a contrived spheroidal world map while at the same time, reinforcing the heliocentric sophistry.

The World Magnetic Model is (not surprisingly) managed under a military performance standard to ensure navigational efficacy and safety.¹² As stated in its General Description:

The WMM is a spherical harmonic model of the Earth’s main (mostly core generated) magnetic field and its secular (slow temporal) change. The main field portion is to degree and order 12 and consists of 168 Schmidt-normalized spherical harmonic coefficients. The secular change field is also specified to degree and order 12 and consists of 168 coefficients. [...]¹³

The mathematical tools supporting that model are available in well-known texts on geomagnetism.^14,15 Magnetic field calculators are available on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.¹⁶

The bottom line, reader, is not to be unwilling to question a model, theory, or system that is draped in complex technical descriptions and supported or administered by mainstream organizations. In the case of the World Magnetic Model, there is no doubt that the application of spherical harmonics is correct in its intended application. The problem is that the application in question would be unnecessary to model the world as it really is, if that world were not veiled from humanity.

---

Conclusion

Science is inherently limited by the scientific method as described above which means that heliocentrism (subsuming speculative and untestable cosmological entities and distances) and its necessary offspring of evolutionism (subsuming speculative and untestable transitions and eons of time) fall out of the category of science and into the category of scientism.

Gauch puts the matter rather succinctly (referencing the American Association for the Advancement of Science):

If an argument for a given worldview belief presumes or asserts that science exclusively is the only source of public and empirical evidence, then the diagnosis is the unmitigated scientism that is roundly repudiated as being outside mainstream science (AAAS 1989:26, 30, 133–135, 1990:24–25).¹⁷

We rest our case.

— FINIS —

The reader is advised to proceed to our web page titled, Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth.

---

1. For an exclusively scriptural basis for precluding a moon landing or even travel to the vicinity of the moon for that matter, see our blog post titled, The Moon (Part I).↩️

2. Phillip Darrell Collins and Paul David Collins, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century (BookSurge Publishing, 2006).↩️

3. Cf. Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., Scientific Method in Brief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), Summary of scientific method, pp. 267–270. Some of the logic and terminology have been adapted from Figure 14.2, p. 268.↩️

4. Parallax, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe — An Experimental Inquiry Into the True Figure of the Earth, Proving It a Plane, Without Orbital or Axial Motion, and the Only Known Material World; Its True Position in the Universe, Comparatively Recent Formation, Present Chemical Condition, and Approaching Destruction by Fire, &c., &c., &c., Illustrations by George Davey, F.Z.S., Third Edition — Revised and Enlarged (London: Day and Son, 1881).↩️

5. It should be noted that the world record for long-distance landscape photography (as of 2021-SEP-24) is 443 kilometers (275 miles), specifically, the distance from Pic de Finestrelles in the Pyrenees to Pic Gaspard (Barre des Écrins) in the French Alps. See Beyond Horizons.↩️

6. Pythagoras is thought to have encountered heliocentrism in the East, probably India. This website, however, with the notable exceptions of Archimedes’ reference to Aristarchus of Samos and Cloemedes’ collection and publication of Eratosthenes’ fragments, generally excludes both secondary references to nonextant primary sources as well as references to non-Western sources, the scope being essentially limited to what has been documented in the Western scientific tradition.↩️

7. Op. cit., Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., p. 268. See also Chapter 9 — Inductive Logic and Statistics, pp. 150–173.↩️

8. Funk & Wagnall’s Canadian College Dictionary (Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1986), p. 1203.↩️

9. See List of The Ocean Race sailors.↩️

10. See 1993–1994 Whitbread Round the World Race.↩️

11. See rumble video titled, No Magnetic Declination on the FLAT EARTH Hervé Riboni (FULL Presentation).↩️

12. MIL-PRF-89500B — PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION — WORLD MAGNETIC MODEL (WMM) — 28 February 2019.↩️

13. Ibid., 3.1 General desription, p. 3.↩️

14. G. Backus, R. L. Parker, and C. Constable, Foundations of Geomagnetism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).↩️

15. R. A. Langel, “The Main Field,” in Geomagentism — Volume 1, edited by J. A. Jacobs (New York: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 249–512.↩️

16. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — Magnetic Field Calculators.↩️

17. Ibid., p. 107. Gauch’s AAAS references are formally listed on p. 272 as follows: “AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). [1] 1989. Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, DC: AAAS. [2] 1990. The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action. Washington, DC: AAAS.”↩️

---

WEB PAGE CONTROL
REVISION	0	1
DATE	2023–JUN–05	2023–DEC–21