Yes it is

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?

Yes it is

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?

Yes it is

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 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?