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.
Not really. I mean like the measurement used to comprise such maps. The gleason map is more like a projection, like the mercator.
no, i can prove the earth does not curve and does not move
I would use the word demonstrate or measure. Proof is too subjective, and varies too much from individual to individual. What serves as proof to one, may not even qualify as evidence to another. As I said (and meant!) proof doesn’t really/objectively exist outside of mathematics.
And how we prove/demonstrate/measure these things is important! The original globe posit was “proved”/demonstrated, apocryphally, by merely looking at the moon and spinning yarns (“arguments”) about it. Of course we know better than to fall for such things, but doing the reverse (for instance, declaring the world flat because the antarctic sun isn’t real) is absolutely equivalent.
and record measurements taken with simple devices like a sexton, or just taking perfect notes about the locations of celestials.
Sure, but you won’t be measuring the earth... You’ll be measuring the sky! The shape of the world is not hidden in the sky, and that is a silly/stupid/unscientific place to look for it! The ground, which we wish to study, is in the literal opposite direction!
we can use observations, and even other peoples youtube videos to help us prove something.
As I keep saying, we can use any evidence we wish to attempt to prove anything. But proving is not really something we can do for another (outside of mathematics), because it is too subjective. You can prove things to yourself, and you can provide demonstration, evidence, and reasoning to others in the hopes that they will suffice as proof to them. You can lead a horse to water...
it doesnt have to be peer reviewed, blessed by Elon, or whatever.
Agreed! But it ought to be thoroughly validated/verified by us before we accept it. In many ways, this is your whole point about the antarctic sun. Right?
its not uncertain or a theory: the earth is flat!
The exact shape of the entire world is uncertain (because we don’t have verified and verifiable data/measurements of the entire world to conclude from). We need to be careful with our verbiage and claims. We can say and demonstrate with certainty that locally, the world is mostly flat (and that based on scientific law, it cannot be spherical in the manner we are taught). The best way to demonstrate this, in my view, is through hydrostatics.
the models we have help people that don't understand visual[ize]
Exactly! They are really graphical conceptual aids, not models and certainly not scientific models.
and how the sun and moon works
Again, I think we need to be very careful with our words in order to effectively communicate. The “models” don’t include how the sun or the moon works, they purport to describe the paths they take in the sky (not why, how, or what they are). Even that is extremely speculative. If it is true that half of the known world is illuminated at any given time, then the light from the sun is uniquely focused in ways that normal point sources do not exhibit and we can only speculate as to the reasons for.
i know that,,,,everyone knows that so well that you dont even need to say it.
I wish that were so. The vast majority have no idea what a scientific model is or what it is for, sadly including many practicing scientists :(
i know enough scientists in my life to know they aren't any more special than anyone else, with some exceptions.
Pride is a fools fortress and shame’s cloak. No scientist is worthy of worship, some are worthy of admiration.
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.
Not really. I mean like the measurement used to comprise such maps. The gleason map is more like a projection, like the mercator.
I would use the word demonstrate or measure. Proof is too subjective, and varies too much from individual to individual. What serves as proof to one, may not even qualify as evidence to another. As I said (and meant!) proof doesn’t really/objectively exist outside of mathematics.
And how we prove/demonstrate/measure these things is important! The original globe posit was “proved”/demonstrated, apocryphally, by merely looking at the moon and spinning yarns (“arguments”) about it. Of course we know better than to fall for such things, but doing the reverse (for instance, declaring the world flat because the antarctic sun isn’t real) is absolutely equivalent.
Sure, but you won’t be measuring the earth... You’ll be measuring the sky! The shape of the world is not hidden in the sky, and that is a silly/stupid/unscientific place to look for it! The ground, which we wish to study, is in the literal opposite direction!
As I keep saying, we can use any evidence we wish to attempt to prove anything. But proving is not really something we can do for another (outside of mathematics), because it is too subjective. You can prove things to yourself, and you can provide demonstration, evidence, and reasoning to others in the hopes that they will suffice as proof to them. You can lead a horse to water...
Agreed! But it ought to be thoroughly validated/verified by us before we accept it. In many ways, this is your whole point about the antarctic sun. Right?
The exact shape of the entire world is uncertain (because we don’t have verified and verifiable data/measurements of the entire world to conclude from). We need to be careful with our verbiage and claims. We can say and demonstrate with certainty that locally, the world is mostly flat (and that based on scientific law, it cannot be spherical in the manner we are taught). The best way to demonstrate this, in my view, is through hydrostatics.
Exactly! They are really graphical conceptual aids, not models and certainly not scientific models.
Again, I think we need to be very careful with our words in order to effectively communicate. The “models” don’t include how the sun or the moon works, they purport to describe the paths they take in the sky (not why, how, or what they are). Even that is extremely speculative. If it is true that half of the known world is illuminated at any given time, then the light from the sun is uniquely focused in ways that normal point sources do not exhibit and we can only speculate as to the reasons for.
I wish that were so. The vast majority have no idea what a scientific model is or what it is for, sadly including many practicing scientists :(
Pride is a fools fortress and shame’s cloak. No scientist is worthy of worship, some are worthy of admiration.