Evidence Pros
Down the Rabbit Hole

Knowledge Library

Scientific Laws, Theories, Models, and Assumptions

Every claim on Evidence Pros depends on some combination of observations, measurements, laws, theories, models, equations, and assumptions. The categories are not interchangeable, and none of them counts as evidence on its own. Use this library to see what each category can and cannot establish — and to trace which assumptions any given argument inherits.

Theories and models

A theory or model is a framework that generates predictions. Its inclusion here does not endorse it. Each record states what the theory claims, its documented origin, foundational assumptions, mathematics, successful predictions, failed or disputed predictions, and what would falsify it. If a model has not published a quantitative prediction on a given question, we mark that plainly.

  • Globe-Earth Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Earth is an oblate spheroid ~12,742 km in mean diameter, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.

    Origin: Ancient Greek astronomers (Eratosthenes ~240 BCE); consolidated through Copernicus, Kepler, Newton.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Uniform gravitation with G measurable
    • Heliocentric orbital geometry
    • Standard atmospheric refraction profile
    • Photographic and satellite imagery is admissible evidence when provenance is verified

    Physical mechanisms

    • Gravity as mass attraction
    • Axial rotation producing Coriolis
    • Orbital motion producing seasons

    Mathematical framework

    Newtonian gravity + general relativity; spherical/oblate-spheroid geodesy; Keplerian orbits.

    Predictions

    • Horizon drop ≈ d²/(2R) minus refraction lift
    • Foucault precession 24 h / sin(lat)
    • Ring-laser gyroscope reads ~15°/h · sin(lat)
    • Southern-hemisphere great-circle flights shorter than any equator-crossing route

    Successful predictions

    • Spacecraft trajectories to outer planets
    • GPS timing corrections including relativistic effects
    • Foucault-pendulum precession across latitudes
    • Verified southern-route flight distances

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Historical difficulties with anomalous refraction on long over-water sightings
    • Regional tide amplitudes require basin-specific corrections beyond simple tidal force

    Supporting experiments

    • Cavendish balance
    • Foucault pendulum
    • Ring-laser gyroscopes
    • Satellite laser ranging

    Contradictory evidence

    • Individual anomalous long-distance sightings; typically reconcilable via refraction, but not always

    Known limitations

    • Gravity's physical origin remains debated at fundamental scales
    • Dark matter/energy indicate the framework is incomplete cosmologically

    Would be falsified by

    • Reproducible zero-Earth-rate ring-laser gyroscope readings at multiple latitudes
    • Reproducible zero Foucault precession under controlled conditions
    • Reproducible line-of-sight measurements over 100+ km showing no horizon drop under still-air, calibrated-refraction conditions

    Where competing models agree

    Local mechanics, buoyancy, gas laws, hydrostatics, and reflection agree in both models.

  • Flat / Enclosed-Earth Models

    Contested

    Claim: Earth is a stationary plane (often modeled as an azimuthal equidistant projection) with a defined vertical structure and, in some variants, a firmament dome.

    Origin: Ancient near-eastern and Vedic cosmologies; revived in modern form via Rowbotham (1865), Voliva, and 20th–21st century movements.

    Foundational assumptions

    • No axial rotation (in most variants)
    • Sun and moon are local, relatively small, and orbit above the plane
    • Alternative downward-force mechanism (density-and-buoyancy, aether pressure, or unspecified)
    • Long-range visibility limited primarily by perspective, refraction, and angular resolution

    Physical mechanisms

    • Density and buoyancy as downward cause (common variant)
    • Local sun/moon paths above the plane

    Mathematical framework

    Azimuthal projection geometry for maps; no comprehensive equations of motion published in most variants.

    Predictions

    • Zero Coriolis effect from Earth rotation
    • Zero Foucault-pendulum precession from Earth rotation
    • Ring-laser gyroscope reads zero Earth rate
    • Southern-hemisphere air routes should be longer than the equidistant projection implies

    Successful predictions

    • Local mechanics, buoyancy, gas laws, hydrostatics are compatible

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Southern-hemisphere flight-time measurements (SYD-SCL, JNB-PER, AKL-EZE) match globe distances, not azimuthal-projection distances
    • Foucault pendulums and ring-laser gyroscopes measure nonzero rotation matching sin(lat) as predicted by the globe model
    • No quantitative published prediction for tide amplitudes, stellar parallax, or GPS timing has matched observation as precisely

    Supporting experiments

    • Local Bedford Level canal sightings (Rowbotham) — later contested by Wallace's calibrated repetition

    Contradictory evidence

    • Cross-hemispheric verified flight distances
    • Ring-laser and Foucault measurements of Earth rate
    • Stellar parallax measurements

    Known limitations

    • Most variants have no documented quantitative model for gravity, orbital mechanics, tides, or eclipse geometry.
    • Discriminating measurements against this model require the model to publish a specific number; many do not.

    Would be falsified by

    • Any preregistered measurement showing latitude-dependent Coriolis or Foucault effects in agreement with globe prediction
    • Verified great-circle flight distances in the southern hemisphere

    Where competing models agree

    Local mechanics agrees with the globe model; disagreement is global-scale geometry, celestial motion, and downward-force mechanism.

  • Heliocentric Model

    Well supported

    Claim: The sun sits near the barycenter of the solar system; planets, including Earth, orbit it.

    Origin: Aristarchus (~270 BCE); revived by Copernicus (1543), completed by Kepler and Newton.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Newtonian/GR gravity
    • Barycentric orbits are ellipses

    Physical mechanisms

    • Mass attraction between sun and planets

    Mathematical framework

    Keplerian orbital mechanics with Newtonian gravity.

    Predictions

    • Stellar parallax
    • Retrograde motion pattern
    • Aberration of starlight

    Successful predictions

    • Bradley's stellar aberration (1729)
    • Bessel's measured parallax (1838)
    • Retrograde motion of outer planets

    Supporting experiments

    • Stellar-parallax measurements from ground and Gaia satellite

    Known limitations

    • Requires functioning telescopic parallax measurements; historically hard for pre-1830s instruments.

    Would be falsified by

    • Failure to observe stellar parallax with instruments capable of detecting it under the model's predicted magnitude.

    Where competing models agree

    Geocentric Tychonic models can reproduce many local observations but not aberration or parallax.

  • Geocentric Models (Ptolemaic and Tychonic)

    Contested

    Claim: Earth is stationary at the center; sun, planets, and stars orbit around it (Ptolemaic) or around the sun which orbits Earth (Tychonic).

    Origin: Ptolemy's Almagest (~150 CE); Tycho Brahe (1588).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Earth stationary
    • Circular epicycles (Ptolemaic) or hybrid geometry (Tychonic)

    Physical mechanisms

    • Various; typically unspecified in modern revivals

    Mathematical framework

    Ptolemaic epicycles; Tychonic geometry reproduces Copernican appearances mathematically but not physically.

    Predictions

    • No stellar parallax if Earth is stationary (Ptolemaic strict form)
    • Aberration of starlight not predicted

    Successful predictions

    • Local celestial appearances match to naked-eye precision

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Stellar parallax measured after 1838 contradicts strict Ptolemaic geocentrism

    Contradictory evidence

    • Aberration of starlight; measured stellar parallax

    Known limitations

    • Tychonic geometry is empirically indistinguishable from Copernican for many measurements but adds complexity without predictive gain.

    Would be falsified by

    • Measured stellar aberration; measured parallax

    Where competing models agree

    Reproduces local sky motion.

  • General Relativity

    Well supported

    Claim: Gravity is the curvature of spacetime by mass–energy.

    Origin: Einstein (1915).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Equivalence principle
    • Local Lorentz invariance

    Physical mechanisms

    • Spacetime curvature from stress-energy

    Mathematical framework

    Einstein field equations G_μν = 8πG/c⁴ · T_μν.

    Predictions

    • Perihelion precession of Mercury
    • Gravitational light deflection
    • Gravitational time dilation (GPS)
    • Gravitational waves

    Successful predictions

    • Mercury perihelion (43 arcsec/century)
    • Eddington 1919 solar-eclipse light deflection
    • GPS satellite clock corrections
    • LIGO gravitational-wave detection (2015)

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Galaxy rotation curves without dark matter

    Supporting experiments

    • Pound-Rebka gravitational redshift (1959)
    • Gravity Probe B (2011)

    Known limitations

    • Not unified with quantum mechanics; requires dark matter/energy for cosmological fit.

    Would be falsified by

    • Deviations from predicted geodesics in tested regimes

    Where competing models agree

    Newtonian gravity agrees in weak-field limit.

  • Special Relativity

    Well supported

    Claim: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames; c is invariant.

    Origin: Einstein (1905).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Principle of relativity
    • Invariance of c

    Physical mechanisms

    • Time dilation and length contraction as frame-dependent effects

    Mathematical framework

    Lorentz transformations.

    Predictions

    • Time dilation of moving clocks
    • E = mc²

    Successful predictions

    • Muon time-dilation measurements
    • Particle-accelerator kinematics

    Supporting experiments

    • Hafele–Keating atomic clocks (1971)

    Known limitations

    • Does not include gravity; extended by GR.

    Would be falsified by

    • Frame-dependent c or violation of Lorentz invariance

    Where competing models agree

    Newtonian kinematics agrees at low velocity.

  • Newtonian Gravity

    Supported with open questions

    Claim: Masses attract with F = G m₁ m₂ / r².

    Origin: Newton (1687).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Absolute space and time
    • Instantaneous action at a distance

    Physical mechanisms

    • Mass-based attractive force

    Mathematical framework

    Inverse-square force law.

    Predictions

    • Planetary orbits
    • Falling-body acceleration

    Successful predictions

    • Solar-system ephemerides to arcsecond precision
    • Neptune's location from Uranus perturbations (1846)

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Mercury perihelion precession (43 arcsec/century) — corrected by GR

    Supporting experiments

    • Cavendish torsion balance

    Contradictory evidence

    • Mercury perihelion; gravitational lensing

    Known limitations

    • Fails in strong-field and relativistic regimes.

    Would be falsified by

    • Precise deviations from inverse-square in tested regimes

    Where competing models agree

    Weak-field limit of GR.

  • Density-and-Buoyancy Explanation of Fall

    Informally stated

    Claim: Objects denser than the surrounding medium fall; buoyancy explains rise. No mass-attractive gravity is required.

    Origin: Ancient; revived in modern flat-Earth literature.

    Foundational assumptions

    • A downward field g exists whose origin is not specified
    • Density difference in a fluid explains rise/fall in a field

    Physical mechanisms

    • Density differences within a fluid in a downward field

    Mathematical framework

    Archimedes' principle F_b = ρ V g; no independent quantitative gravitational law.

    Predictions

    • Denser-than-air objects fall in air; less dense rise

    Successful predictions

    • Everyday buoyancy experiments

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Predicts nothing about orbits, tides, or Cavendish-scale mass attraction; assumes g without deriving it

    Supporting experiments

    • Standard buoyancy demonstrations

    Contradictory evidence

    • Cavendish-type experiments if independently replicated at claimed precision

    Known limitations

    • Requires a separate account of what produces the downward field g and why it varies with altitude and latitude

    Would be falsified by

    • A Cavendish-style measurement of attraction between laboratory masses, independently replicated at multiple sites

    Where competing models agree

    Both models use Archimedes' principle within a downward field; they disagree on the field's origin.

  • Plate Tectonics

    Well supported

    Claim: Earth's lithosphere is divided into plates that move over the asthenosphere.

    Origin: Wegener (1912) continental drift; consolidated 1960s with seafloor spreading data.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Convecting mantle
    • Rigid lithospheric plates

    Physical mechanisms

    • Mantle convection, ridge push, slab pull

    Mathematical framework

    Kinematic plate motion vectors; elastic-plastic rheology.

    Predictions

    • Symmetric magnetic-stripe patterns at spreading ridges
    • Earthquake distribution along plate boundaries

    Successful predictions

    • Magnetic-anomaly stripes in Atlantic and Pacific crust
    • Wadati–Benioff zones

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Details of intraplate volcanism (hotspot origin)

    Supporting experiments

    • GPS measurement of continental drift

    Known limitations

    • Mantle convection dynamics not fully resolved

    Would be falsified by

    • Absent measurable plate motion; asymmetric magnetic stripes

    Where competing models agree

    Expanding-Earth models can reproduce some patterns but fail on subduction evidence.

  • Atmospheric Pressure Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude following P(h) ≈ P₀ · exp(-h/H) for a well-mixed isothermal atmosphere.

    Origin: Torricelli (1643), Pascal (1648).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Gravitational field pulling gas downward
    • Thermodynamic equilibrium

    Physical mechanisms

    • Gas weight in a gravitational (or downward) field

    Mathematical framework

    Barometric formula; more accurate ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) for aviation.

    Predictions

    • Pressure of ~101 kPa at sea level, ~26 kPa at 10 km altitude

    Successful predictions

    • Aviation altimetry

    Supporting experiments

    • Puy de Dôme barometer test (1648)

    Known limitations

    • Assumes a downward field g and boundary conditions

    Would be falsified by

    • Pressure profile inconsistent with barometric formula

    Where competing models agree

    Applied in both models; disagreement is about the boundary above (open vs. enclosed).

  • Atmospheric Refraction Model (surveyor k ≈ 0.13)

    Supported with open questions

    Claim: Terrestrial line-of-sight bends downward by an amount modeled with refraction coefficient k, standardly ~0.13.

    Origin: Bouguer (1729); modern surveying practice.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Standard atmospheric temperature/density profile

    Physical mechanisms

    • Gradient index of refraction with altitude

    Mathematical framework

    Δh_apparent ≈ (1 - k) · d² / (2R)

    Predictions

    • Apparent horizon slightly farther than geometric horizon

    Successful predictions

    • Geodetic survey corrections

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Anomalous mirage/looming events require non-standard k

    Supporting experiments

    • Surveying triangulations

    Known limitations

    • k varies day-to-day; using a fixed value can produce large errors

    Would be falsified by

    • Independent atmospheric temperature-profile measurement showing k inconsistent with observed lift

    Where competing models agree

    Both models invoke refraction; the argument is about how much and when.

  • Celestial-Sphere Model

    Well supported

    Claim: A geometric abstraction placing stars on a unit sphere for angular calculation.

    Origin: Ancient Greek astronomy.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Angular positions only; no distance information

    Physical mechanisms

    • None; a computational convenience

    Mathematical framework

    Spherical astronomy; RA/Dec coordinates.

    Predictions

    • Angular positions of stars over time

    Successful predictions

    • Ephemerides and star charts

    Known limitations

    • Not a physical claim about star distances

    Would be falsified by

    • N/A — computational abstraction

    Where competing models agree

    Used by both models for angular tracking.

  • Solar and Lunar Motion Models

    Well supported

    Claim: Sun and moon follow predictable paths described by ephemerides.

    Origin: Classical astronomy.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Adopted heliocentric or geocentric frame

    Physical mechanisms

    • Newtonian/GR gravitation in the globe model; unspecified in most flat variants

    Mathematical framework

    Analytic ephemerides (VSOP87, ELP-2000).

    Predictions

    • Eclipse times and paths
    • Moon phases

    Successful predictions

    • Eclipse predictions correct to seconds

    Supporting experiments

    • Historical eclipse records match retrocalculated ephemerides

    Would be falsified by

    • Failed eclipse prediction

    Where competing models agree

    Both models must reproduce eclipse geometry; only ephemeris-based physical models have done so to arcsecond precision.

  • Eclipse Geometry

    Well supported

    Claim: Solar eclipses occur when the moon occults the sun; lunar eclipses when Earth's shadow falls on the moon.

    Origin: Anaxagoras (~450 BCE); refined by Ptolemy and later.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Line-of-sight geometry
    • Sun–Earth–Moon distances

    Physical mechanisms

    • Occultation by a physical body

    Mathematical framework

    Three-body geometry using ephemeris positions.

    Predictions

    • Umbra/penumbra paths at given date/time

    Successful predictions

    • Every modern solar-eclipse path predicted to sub-kilometer precision

    Supporting experiments

    • Direct observation of predicted paths

    Would be falsified by

    • Eclipse path deviating from prediction

    Where competing models agree

    Alternative models are welcome to publish their own predicted paths; where they do, the paths have not matched observation.

  • Tides Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Ocean tides result primarily from lunar and solar gravitational gradients modulated by basin geometry.

    Origin: Newton (1687); Laplace tidal equations (1775); Doodson harmonics (1921).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Lunar/solar mass, distance
    • Basin geometry

    Physical mechanisms

    • Differential gravitational attraction across the Earth

    Mathematical framework

    Laplace tidal equations; harmonic decomposition.

    Predictions

    • Tide gauge readings at each station

    Successful predictions

    • Tide tables accurate to minutes and centimeters

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Some coastal amplifications require detailed basin modeling

    Supporting experiments

    • Global tide-gauge network

    Would be falsified by

    • Predicted tides at a station failing repeatedly

    Where competing models agree

    Alternative tide mechanisms are proposed; quantitative predictions from them are rarely published.

  • Seasons Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Seasons arise from Earth's axial tilt (23.44°) and its orbit around the sun.

    Origin: Ancient recognition; Kepler-Newton synthesis.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Axial tilt
    • Elliptical orbit around sun

    Physical mechanisms

    • Angle of solar insolation varying by latitude and date

    Mathematical framework

    Solar declination as a function of orbital position and tilt.

    Predictions

    • Simultaneous opposite seasons in the two hemispheres

    Successful predictions

    • Confirmed globally each year

    Would be falsified by

    • Same-hemisphere synchronization of seasons across latitudes

    Where competing models agree

    Alternative models must explain simultaneous opposite hemispheric seasons; several proposed 'hot-spot sun' variants have not matched observed latitude patterns.

  • Time Zones Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Local solar noon varies with longitude; time zones offset from UTC follow ~15° longitude bands.

    Origin: International Meridian Conference (1884).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Earth rotates once per ~24h relative to the sun (globe) OR sun circles above the plane (flat variant)

    Physical mechanisms

    • Rotation (globe) or apparent solar path (flat)

    Mathematical framework

    Angular offset × 4 min/deg.

    Predictions

    • Local solar noon time vs longitude

    Successful predictions

    • Verified worldwide

    Supporting experiments

    • Timekeeping records

    Known limitations

    • Compatible with either physical mechanism if the model can produce simultaneous day/night patterns; only the globe model has matched the observed simultaneous antipodal midnight/noon in verified live cross-continent broadcasts.

    Would be falsified by

    • Antipodal live broadcasts violating simultaneity

    Where competing models agree

    Both models attempt to explain time zones; flat variants require a moving 'spotlight sun' whose predicted illumination patterns have not matched observed simultaneous day at antipodal locations.

  • Satellite Orbit Model

    Well supported

    Claim: Artificial satellites follow Keplerian/Newtonian orbits around Earth with well-defined altitudes and periods.

    Origin: 20th-century orbital mechanics; first orbit Sputnik 1 (1957).

    Foundational assumptions

    • Newtonian gravity
    • Roughly spherical Earth

    Physical mechanisms

    • Gravitational orbit

    Mathematical framework

    Two-line-element sets, SGP4 propagator.

    Predictions

    • Satellite pass times, positions

    Successful predictions

    • Verified daily via amateur satellite tracking, radio, and GPS

    Supporting experiments

    • Radio triangulation of satellite passes

    Would be falsified by

    • Satellite motion inconsistent with orbital equations

    Where competing models agree

    Some alternative models replace satellites with high-altitude balloons or ground transmitters; those alternatives must explain time-of-flight ranging data from independent receivers.

  • Biblical Cosmology Interpretations

    Informally stated

    Claim: Various traditional readings of Hebrew and Christian scripture describe an Earth with a firmament, waters above and below, and specific creation events.

    Origin: Genesis 1; Psalm 104; ancient Jewish and Christian exegesis.

    Foundational assumptions

    • Chosen interpretive framework (literal, phenomenological, poetic, or symbolic) drives the physical claim

    Physical mechanisms

    • Interpretation-dependent

    Mathematical framework

    None inherent to the scripture; imposed by the interpreter.

    Predictions

    • Under strict-literal firmament reading: an observable solid dome
    • Under phenomenological reading: matches modern astronomy without physical firmament

    Successful predictions

    • Phenomenological readings are compatible with observed astronomy

    Failed or disputed predictions

    • Strict-literal firmament predictions have not been observationally confirmed

    Known limitations

    • The physical claim depends entirely on the interpretive framework chosen; scripture itself does not specify which is intended.

    Would be falsified by

    • A framework-specific prediction that fails the measurement it declares

    Where competing models agree

    Scriptural language is compatible with multiple physical models depending on interpretation.