you are NOT prepared for an intellectual discussion on the topic
Perhaps. I never cared much for academics!
its not going to be a productive discussion if i can call bullshit on the first point you make.
I think calling bullshit might be a little premature. My point was that scientific models are built for purpose/use! They are not for understanding, they are not for determining the shapes of physical objects, and as far as I am aware there is no scientific model of a flat earth (what would its purpose even be?). Models are meta-scientific tools built for specific use. All models are wrong, some are useful for finite tasks (and usually for a finite amount of time, to boot).
you dont understand the flat earth model, so you couldn't understand how wrong this statement is and how the sun moves relative to the south rim.
I have seen the graphics/diagrams/videos that, often, depict antarctica as a giant ice ring surrounding the known world. I have seen the depictions of the sun and moon juxtaposed onto them. They are merely speculative depictions - graphical aids to help communicate possibilities. They aren’t maps, they aren’t models, and they certainly aren’t scientific.
If they were correct and scientific, there would still be potential ways for the antarctic 24 hr sun to exist. To say that the model “proves” this and that is to misunderstand, and venerate, a mere graphical conceptual aid.
i agree earnest discussion is great, but most people are not capable of it.
Sadly I think you might be right. However, we all get better when we practice! Flat earth research, in my experience, is largely about building such skills and refining them! I think that most everyone can learn to be a better independent researcher/student and engage in earnest discourse - and that everyone will be made better/more able by doing so!
The model is based on solid scientific evidence and observation
No, it isn’t. It’s largely based on speculation and guessing. Who put together this model? What are their names, and where do they derive their datasets? Who verified/validated their datasets? etc. etc. The flat earth “models” that exist are anything but scientific, and it is important to recognize that in my view. They are merely graphical conceptual aids - possibilities. It is important to study reality, not models!
There is no possible other explaination
Whenever we have such “absolute” thoughts we are typically wrong. More exists in heaven and earth than exists in all of our philosophies. And through imagination, all things are possible. If you can’t imagine another possibility, it is usually a failure of imagination!
As I said before, 2 (of many) possibilities for how the earth could be flat AND the 24 hr sun could exist in antarctica are :
The sun seen in antarctica could be a refraction/reflection of the sun.
There could be more than one sun.
Many who mistake the graphical conceptual aids as models become unduly certain that antarctica is a ring of ice surrounding the world - which in and of itself is a speculation - not a certainty.
How light shines on a sphere is physical proof. If you can't see what I'm saying, then we have more evidence that poeople dont learn from these types of discussions.
Or we have more discussion to have, and more evidence to provide! Communication is difficult, but worth the repeated effort to successfully convey. How light shines on a sphere depends a lot on the light source, and the media it travels through on route to said sphere! Things are not as a cut and dry in my view, however I am interested to learn more about your reasoning and to exchange my own! Hopefully you aren’t too burnt out on talking already!
Then why can’t you answer those questions? Scientific models are built from data, and they are built for purpose/use. What is the purpose of this model, and who validated/verified this data set to build it? Again, models are NOT for measurement nor determining the shape of any object in reality - we use measurement for that!
It matters not who put it together.
I mostly agree! It matters much more who validated the dataset from which it is built, and more importantly than that - HOW it was validated/verified. It categorically / semantically cannot be a scientific model without definite, explicit, and thoroughly known answers to these questions (and others)!
There is not another sun in our known world.
Possibly (at least not in our known/accepted world). How can we validate and verify that with certainty? And if that is correct (that there is only one sun), then how can we determine that where we see the sun is actually where the sun is (especially knowing that refraction through air alone ensures that it isn’t - and this is one of the reasons that we know that the sunset is an illusion!!!)
I don't agree this is productive
Not in and of itself, no. Discussion is just that. Musing is just that. The next, and most important, step is validation/verification of such “conclusions” bore from discussion! In my view, this is best conducted through science - but that is by no means the only way.
You just don't see like you are willing to question your believes
I’m actually a little more aggressive when it comes to beliefs. I don’t “question” them; instead I seek to annihilate/excise them! Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and across purposes to objective study of any kind. As a result, we shouldn’t question our beliefs, we should identify and destroy them. We should seek to know (with certainty) and understand how we know (with certainty) or recognize, acutely, that we do not know. Right?
Perhaps. I never cared much for academics!
I think calling bullshit might be a little premature. My point was that scientific models are built for purpose/use! They are not for understanding, they are not for determining the shapes of physical objects, and as far as I am aware there is no scientific model of a flat earth (what would its purpose even be?). Models are meta-scientific tools built for specific use. All models are wrong, some are useful for finite tasks (and usually for a finite amount of time, to boot).
I have seen the graphics/diagrams/videos that, often, depict antarctica as a giant ice ring surrounding the known world. I have seen the depictions of the sun and moon juxtaposed onto them. They are merely speculative depictions - graphical aids to help communicate possibilities. They aren’t maps, they aren’t models, and they certainly aren’t scientific.
If they were correct and scientific, there would still be potential ways for the antarctic 24 hr sun to exist. To say that the model “proves” this and that is to misunderstand, and venerate, a mere graphical conceptual aid.
Sadly I think you might be right. However, we all get better when we practice! Flat earth research, in my experience, is largely about building such skills and refining them! I think that most everyone can learn to be a better independent researcher/student and engage in earnest discourse - and that everyone will be made better/more able by doing so!
No, it isn’t. It’s largely based on speculation and guessing. Who put together this model? What are their names, and where do they derive their datasets? Who verified/validated their datasets? etc. etc. The flat earth “models” that exist are anything but scientific, and it is important to recognize that in my view. They are merely graphical conceptual aids - possibilities. It is important to study reality, not models!
Whenever we have such “absolute” thoughts we are typically wrong. More exists in heaven and earth than exists in all of our philosophies. And through imagination, all things are possible. If you can’t imagine another possibility, it is usually a failure of imagination!
As I said before, 2 (of many) possibilities for how the earth could be flat AND the 24 hr sun could exist in antarctica are :
Many who mistake the graphical conceptual aids as models become unduly certain that antarctica is a ring of ice surrounding the world - which in and of itself is a speculation - not a certainty.
Or we have more discussion to have, and more evidence to provide! Communication is difficult, but worth the repeated effort to successfully convey. How light shines on a sphere depends a lot on the light source, and the media it travels through on route to said sphere! Things are not as a cut and dry in my view, however I am interested to learn more about your reasoning and to exchange my own! Hopefully you aren’t too burnt out on talking already!
Then why can’t you answer those questions? Scientific models are built from data, and they are built for purpose/use. What is the purpose of this model, and who validated/verified this data set to build it? Again, models are NOT for measurement nor determining the shape of any object in reality - we use measurement for that!
I mostly agree! It matters much more who validated the dataset from which it is built, and more importantly than that - HOW it was validated/verified. It categorically / semantically cannot be a scientific model without definite, explicit, and thoroughly known answers to these questions (and others)!
Possibly (at least not in our known/accepted world). How can we validate and verify that with certainty? And if that is correct (that there is only one sun), then how can we determine that where we see the sun is actually where the sun is (especially knowing that refraction through air alone ensures that it isn’t - and this is one of the reasons that we know that the sunset is an illusion!!!)
Not in and of itself, no. Discussion is just that. Musing is just that. The next, and most important, step is validation/verification of such “conclusions” bore from discussion! In my view, this is best conducted through science - but that is by no means the only way.
I’m actually a little more aggressive when it comes to beliefs. I don’t “question” them; instead I seek to annihilate/excise them! Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and across purposes to objective study of any kind. As a result, we shouldn’t question our beliefs, we should identify and destroy them. We should seek to know (with certainty) and understand how we know (with certainty) or recognize, acutely, that we do not know. Right?