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?
I can keep proving the flat earth and using FE models to explain observations
You can keep arguing for the flat earth, I agree. But proving the shape of any object requires rigorous and repeated measurement - not models or explanations of phenomena!
And sounds like you'll remain indifferent for globe or flat earth, good on ya for staying open minded
I’m more of a “globe skeptic/denier”. I lack the verified and verifiable data to determine the shape of the entire world with certainty, but I can demonstrate and conclude that it is not spherical the way we are taught. If our world’s surface is covered in 70% liquid water, it is unscientific for its shape to be spherical because the laws of hydrostatics forbid it.
Sure, technically everything is debatable,
Sadly :( Debate is to be avoided like the anti-intellectual plague it is.
but its not worth debating obvious observations by claiming we don't see what we see
Agreed. However, some would claim that is exactly what you are doing in regards to the antarctic sun! In my view, it doesn’t matter if there is or there is not. The worlds shape is unaffected by the lights in the sky.
Its just a tool, but we seem to be hung up on symantecs.
This happens. Communication is hard, and takes sustained and repeated effort from all participants!
Do you understand that this is proof?
Not in my view, no. Even if the flat earth models that existed were scientific (which they aren’t; they are closer to graphical conceptual aids) the shape of the world is the shape of the world. The lights in the sky and their motions are something else entirely. For instance, there is a perfectly sound model (that used to be more prevalent in scientific circles of the past) that defines the earth as stationary and all the lights as moving. That doesn’t demonstrate that the world is stationary any more than the current astronomical model demonstrates it’s in motion. Models are not for explanation of physical phenomena. In science, that’s what experiment is for!
Sun light on one side of globe means dark on other side. Its just common sense and critical thinking. How could both sides of globe be dark on june 22? Or Dec 22?
Surely we can imagine ways, and then build them into our contrived model. Rahu and ketu come to mind, amongst many other potential possibilities. There is a good reason why models are not used for explanation in science! That’s mythology, not science!
Thr heliocentric model doesn't explain observation and should be regarded as pure scifi fantacy
This is largely true. Sun worshippers man :(
, not a useful tool to understand reality.
No models are. That’s not what models are for! All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful (an explicit purpose the model is built for) - for a time. Explanation of phenomena or the shapes of physical objects are not among those uses.
hinders real science in the fields of geology and astronomy.
I don’t exactly see it this way. The trouble is that geology and astronomy are largely pseudoscience/mythology/religion (as you said, in the religion of scientism). They aren’t being hindered, they are just bunk and not science. In order to discern between actual science and pseudoscience masquerading as it - you must first learn what science actually is. The vast majority of us, including many practicing “scientists” are not taught this and rampant scientific illiteracy (and scientism) abounds as a result. I have found learning about science to be extremely valuable (and useful for said discernment) and wish to share what i have learned with others!
Because of this, me, an average person, knows more about our world and how it works than a conference full of astrophysicists and geologists...and that is pathetic state of our reality
This may well be true. However I would largely credit the state of our “education” (conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood) as the true cause.
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?
You can keep arguing for the flat earth, I agree. But proving the shape of any object requires rigorous and repeated measurement - not models or explanations of phenomena!
I’m more of a “globe skeptic/denier”. I lack the verified and verifiable data to determine the shape of the entire world with certainty, but I can demonstrate and conclude that it is not spherical the way we are taught. If our world’s surface is covered in 70% liquid water, it is unscientific for its shape to be spherical because the laws of hydrostatics forbid it.
Sadly :( Debate is to be avoided like the anti-intellectual plague it is.
Agreed. However, some would claim that is exactly what you are doing in regards to the antarctic sun! In my view, it doesn’t matter if there is or there is not. The worlds shape is unaffected by the lights in the sky.
This happens. Communication is hard, and takes sustained and repeated effort from all participants!
Not in my view, no. Even if the flat earth models that existed were scientific (which they aren’t; they are closer to graphical conceptual aids) the shape of the world is the shape of the world. The lights in the sky and their motions are something else entirely. For instance, there is a perfectly sound model (that used to be more prevalent in scientific circles of the past) that defines the earth as stationary and all the lights as moving. That doesn’t demonstrate that the world is stationary any more than the current astronomical model demonstrates it’s in motion. Models are not for explanation of physical phenomena. In science, that’s what experiment is for!
Surely we can imagine ways, and then build them into our contrived model. Rahu and ketu come to mind, amongst many other potential possibilities. There is a good reason why models are not used for explanation in science! That’s mythology, not science!
This is largely true. Sun worshippers man :(
No models are. That’s not what models are for! All models are wrong, some are limitedly useful (an explicit purpose the model is built for) - for a time. Explanation of phenomena or the shapes of physical objects are not among those uses.
I don’t exactly see it this way. The trouble is that geology and astronomy are largely pseudoscience/mythology/religion (as you said, in the religion of scientism). They aren’t being hindered, they are just bunk and not science. In order to discern between actual science and pseudoscience masquerading as it - you must first learn what science actually is. The vast majority of us, including many practicing “scientists” are not taught this and rampant scientific illiteracy (and scientism) abounds as a result. I have found learning about science to be extremely valuable (and useful for said discernment) and wish to share what i have learned with others!
This may well be true. However I would largely credit the state of our “education” (conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood) as the true cause.