This is all just useless conjecture for a few reasons.
One reason, is you are arguing using physics models that have formed the basis of our understanding yet you reject the overall understanding.
Our current understanding of magnetism and electricity in the universe is albeit in it's stages of infancy, but when you want to instead suggest that theories from thousands of years ago are more relevant I beg to differ.
Your observations are subjective simply because they are from your viewpoint using your understanding, you seem to think you have it all figured out and all your reasoning has proven to you that the claims are real. When in reality you have misunderstood what you see and also what you should expect to see. I am not the first person to point this out either, so simply review what all the other people who do not accept the claim of how the orbit works with respect to our visible star groups.
Regarding velocity. When you want to insert the laws declared long ago with such a minimal understanding of related inputs, surely you can expect nothing but random back. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Rest assured that if any of the flat earth ideas you have put forth so far were able to be proven as such, then the proof would be clear, more evidence to the fact it is subjective analysis.
So standing on the tracks I observe they converge in the distance.
My observation is incorrect, this is known. But what my eyes tell me and my brain accepts is that they converge.
This is stark evidence that an observation is taken from the eye of the beholder, compared against what that entity knows and then a conclusion is formed, this is 100% subjective based on the state of the various inputs.
To proclaim observations are not subjective is just ignorant to the reality that enforces an understanding in a given observation.
About velocity, im correct to add velocities, but i understand that i am not taking into account many factors, and thats OK, because the estimate is close enough to show the law of constant velocity is violated.
This is 100% insanity, you can repeat this as many times as you like. You will find the answer to be as you expect given the inputs you measured. When in reality you are not examining the correct inputs to form a correct conclusion.
I am happy to view any evidence, but contrary to your claims, I have researched many of the topics in the claims made by people who believe the earth is flat.
It is the sole reason why I ask for a listing of the points, clearly I am not detached from this analysis, but very much alive. The current result is, there is nothing that is not subjective analysis that I have found thus far, nothing is concrete with so many unknowns in the field.
Someone looks at a thing, draws their conclusion based on what they think they know and then manage to convince people with the small amount of information they have about the vast claims they make.
Still on the reality of subjective vs objective, You need to understand that if you did not know what you are seeing then it is what you accept. For example.
I read a newspaper article talking about something I know lots about. I proceed to expose all the holes in the article, information left out, not explained or just plain wrong. I know this because of my own information on the given topic.
I turn the page and read an article I know nothing about... I have a completely different mindset, this information is new to me and the author is the expert, we are trained to trust and accept information and bam, there it is.
So subjective analysis is when you form a conclusion based on the information you have and it cannot be definitely tested with an experiment that produces measurable results.
In the example of the velocity, you have no idea what forces are at play when it comes to moving massive bodies thru the cosmos, you are maybe able to understand the physics information and ideas we have produced so far, but none of that includes moving planets in the cosmos.
So when it comes to building that formula, please feel free to write what you have here and I will reveal as many blanks as I can think of, nevermind the ones that truly exist that noone has a clue about. Way too much fudge in this analysis the data set is garbage in, garbage out. its like doing astrology for your dog.
lets go back to questioning and testing the absurd heliocentric model, but we will still keep it super simple.
What the heck is this rubbish? Look, you cannot simplify a complex problem and carve out half the analysis and come up with usable results, it just does not work that way.
If you want to talk about the orbit the planet makes in the year cycle there are already tons of immeasurable parameters required out of the gate, this is all just guesswork.
People much more informed than us have been working this shit over for a long time and have all revealed, sorry folks, its just guesswork.
There is no way to use this conclusively to prove anything at all, for example.
Given a point in time, when will we return? Say take a snapshot of the solar system and record the bodies locations, at what point will we return?
When our solar system moves, what is moving? who moves? If you wanted to reference the current astrophysics for the response instead of flat earth, you would find that nobody has your answer.
Flat earth will tell you we are not moving and the whole shit revolves around us. hahah, this, I have big problems with. It makes no rational sense in any of my understandings. If you have this belief, care to give me an idea why?
This is all just useless conjecture for a few reasons.
One reason, is you are arguing using physics models that have formed the basis of our understanding yet you reject the overall understanding.
Our current understanding of magnetism and electricity in the universe is albeit in it's stages of infancy, but when you want to instead suggest that theories from thousands of years ago are more relevant I beg to differ.
Your observations are subjective simply because they are from your viewpoint using your understanding, you seem to think you have it all figured out and all your reasoning has proven to you that the claims are real. When in reality you have misunderstood what you see and also what you should expect to see. I am not the first person to point this out either, so simply review what all the other people who do not accept the claim of how the orbit works with respect to our visible star groups.
Regarding velocity. When you want to insert the laws declared long ago with such a minimal understanding of related inputs, surely you can expect nothing but random back. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Rest assured that if any of the flat earth ideas you have put forth so far were able to be proven as such, then the proof would be clear, more evidence to the fact it is subjective analysis.
So standing on the tracks I observe they converge in the distance. My observation is incorrect, this is known. But what my eyes tell me and my brain accepts is that they converge.
This is stark evidence that an observation is taken from the eye of the beholder, compared against what that entity knows and then a conclusion is formed, this is 100% subjective based on the state of the various inputs.
To proclaim observations are not subjective is just ignorant to the reality that enforces an understanding in a given observation.
This is 100% insanity, you can repeat this as many times as you like. You will find the answer to be as you expect given the inputs you measured. When in reality you are not examining the correct inputs to form a correct conclusion.
I am happy to view any evidence, but contrary to your claims, I have researched many of the topics in the claims made by people who believe the earth is flat.
It is the sole reason why I ask for a listing of the points, clearly I am not detached from this analysis, but very much alive. The current result is, there is nothing that is not subjective analysis that I have found thus far, nothing is concrete with so many unknowns in the field.
Someone looks at a thing, draws their conclusion based on what they think they know and then manage to convince people with the small amount of information they have about the vast claims they make.
Still on the reality of subjective vs objective, You need to understand that if you did not know what you are seeing then it is what you accept. For example.
I read a newspaper article talking about something I know lots about. I proceed to expose all the holes in the article, information left out, not explained or just plain wrong. I know this because of my own information on the given topic.
I turn the page and read an article I know nothing about... I have a completely different mindset, this information is new to me and the author is the expert, we are trained to trust and accept information and bam, there it is.
So subjective analysis is when you form a conclusion based on the information you have and it cannot be definitely tested with an experiment that produces measurable results.
In the example of the velocity, you have no idea what forces are at play when it comes to moving massive bodies thru the cosmos, you are maybe able to understand the physics information and ideas we have produced so far, but none of that includes moving planets in the cosmos.
So when it comes to building that formula, please feel free to write what you have here and I will reveal as many blanks as I can think of, nevermind the ones that truly exist that noone has a clue about. Way too much fudge in this analysis the data set is garbage in, garbage out. its like doing astrology for your dog.
What the heck is this rubbish? Look, you cannot simplify a complex problem and carve out half the analysis and come up with usable results, it just does not work that way.
If you want to talk about the orbit the planet makes in the year cycle there are already tons of immeasurable parameters required out of the gate, this is all just guesswork.
People much more informed than us have been working this shit over for a long time and have all revealed, sorry folks, its just guesswork.
There is no way to use this conclusively to prove anything at all, for example.
Given a point in time, when will we return? Say take a snapshot of the solar system and record the bodies locations, at what point will we return?
When our solar system moves, what is moving? who moves? If you wanted to reference the current astrophysics for the response instead of flat earth, you would find that nobody has your answer.
Flat earth will tell you we are not moving and the whole shit revolves around us. hahah, this, I have big problems with. It makes no rational sense in any of my understandings. If you have this belief, care to give me an idea why?