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.
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.