Evidence Pros
Down the Rabbit Hole

Claim register

Claim Evaluation

Every claim is stated exactly, traced to its origin, and evaluated against the best supporting and the best opposing case. Scientific claims must expose their full reasoning chain — observation, measurement, calculation, prediction, physical test, result, replication — and declare per-model predictions BEFORE the result is shown. Appeals to authority (“science says”, “experts agree”, “the math proves it”, “settled”) are not evidence. Confidence is authored, not tallied. Preserve disagreement rather than force a conclusion.

← Show all claims

  • Incomplete — primary sources not yet ingestedThe universal comparison scaffold below is a placeholder. Do not treat empty sections as evidence.

    Earth curvature is visible in horizon observations

    Unresolved

    Under standard atmospheric conditions, a distant object at height h below the geometric horizon is hidden by curvature by an amount predicted by the sphere geometry, adjusted by refraction.

    Origin: Topic acknowledged; primary sources not yet ingested into this record.

    Best supporting case

    Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.

    Best opposing case

    Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.

    Evidence

      Universal comparison · who claims what, and how each model explains it

      ExperimentalWho makes the claim: Geodesy and surveying references; contested by flat-earth advocates.

      Scope: See exact wording for scope and definitions; further scoping to follow with primary sources.

      Flat / enclosed model

      What it says: Distant objects appear low or vanish due to perspective and refraction on a plane; no curvature is present.

      Required assumptions: earth-oblate-spheroid, standard-atmosphere, observer-elevation

      Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.

      Falsifier: Consistent hull-first disappearance and rising-with-elevation recovery inconsistent with any plane-plus-refraction profile.

      Globe model

      What it says: Objects at distance d beyond eye-height h drop by ≈ d²/(2R) − k·d²/(2R), with R ≈ 6371 km and k the local refraction coefficient.

      Required assumptions: earth-oblate-spheroid, standard-atmosphere, observer-elevation

      Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.

      Falsifier: A calibrated telescope on a stable platform imaging the full base of a target at a distance where the sphere-plus-refraction prediction requires it to be hidden.

      Circular-reasoning check

      No circular-reasoning risks identified in the authored evidence chain.

      Knowledge library · claim → equation → law → assumptions

      Hidden assumptions

      — none recorded —

      Missing evidence

      • Primary sources for the flat-model explanation.
      • Primary sources for the globe-model explanation.
      • At least one reproducible physical test with independent replication.

      Contradictions

      — none recorded —

      Reproducibility

      • Not yet documented in this record.

      Confidence · not_rated

      This record is a structural placeholder. Confidence will only be rated once primary sources and reasoning chain are authored.

      Confidence is authored, not tallied. It reflects primary vs. secondary evidence, source independence, methodology, conflicts, and reproducibility — not the count of sources.

      Open in evidence graph →Browse sources