You can't because they don't exist.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "they don't exist" is not a good way to learn about new things :(
Instead, try doing a little research. If you try and fail to find such charts, let me know what you tried and i'll do my best to help.
I will not do your research for you, because it will make you a weaker student than you already are.
As usual, i'm not a flat earther and you are too belligerent and forgetful to know that :(
because their charts are largely constructed around a heliocentric model
The ancient egyptians conceived of a flat earth with a dome stretched out over it. It's depicted many times in their reliefs.
The ancient chinese are almost certainly the same - prior to greek influence, that is.
You couldn't read them even if i did track one down.
You are welcome to follow up on the claim at your leisure. I have no reason to doubt it, and every reason to conclude it was important to many (if not most) civilizations to watch and record the patterns in the sky.
In ancient egypt, for one, such knowledge was used to convince the subjects that the pharaoh was a god.
ancient egyptians, babylonians, and ancient chinese to name a few.
I leave the cuneiform tablets to someone else to track down ;)
I work hard not to believe. Belief is the enemy of knowledge and to objective study of any kind.
Instead i work to know, or acutely recognize that i do not.
In the case of the eclipse, or the workings of the sun in general - i do not know, though i am certain that what we are taught today about it is as stupid and unscientific as its first incarnation taught in the 19th century (that the sun is a giant fart, perpetually on fire in the sky).
The "it's all an astronomical coincidence" "theory" for the moon and sun just happening to be the perfect size to cover one another (especially in the belief system where they are astronomically distant and wildly different sizes) was always notably stupid and unscientific.
You completely misunderstand. We predict eclipses and generate equations to extrapolate them based on charts - not models.
There are plenty of civilizations which "modeled" the world as flat which also had charts of when eclipses occurred.
The shape of the world is not involved in such things at all.
Beyond that, models are merely tools for limited use - not proof of anything in reality.
We have working astronomical models for the earth being the center of the universe (and assuming the earth a flat plane, as it appears experientially to us). Does that prove that the earth is the center of the universe?
It is trivial to create a model assuming anything you like - reality doesn't care.
There are no "flat earthers", but there are different explanations for the eclipse than the one you believe.
The ancient indian astronomers recorded some "shadow objects" they named rahu and ketu. These dark objects obscure the light from the sun and moon periodically.
This explanation can accommodate selenelion eclipses, which yours cannot.
And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?
Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?
Of course i have other conclusions and evidence from my research, but let's finish chewing what's in our mouths before taking another bite!
Due to your perception
Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.
Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.
True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!
It's yours, specifically.
No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest in the manner required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.
then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.
You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.
Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings
I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and am no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!
You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.
Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.
Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.
Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!
I'm asking about you, specifically.
So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.
Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.
Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).
Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".
It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.
So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!
::gagging noise:: spare me
Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)
But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying.
That is always true, for every human that has ever lived (and likely ever will). We should never forget that, or stop seeking out evidence that our ideas (no matter how "true" or "obvious" they are believed to be by "the majority") may be wrong. A large part of my engaging with flat earth research is to find such evidence and otherwise to expose my conclusions to criticism.
Again, when criticizing natural law - you need to provide repeated and repeatable measurement to the contrary of it. There is no such measurement that exists or that anyone can provide to contradict the statements i've made (for centuries, no less). This includes you, but you are certainly encouraged to try!
You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical
I've determined that it cannot be, through study of science, its history, and the natural world directly. It is well beyond suspicion - and has reached conclusion. However, that does not prevent me - or you - or anyone from being wrong! If i am wrong, i should like to know it! How about you? If the world were not spherical as we are taught, would you want to know it - even if it didn't benefit you personally and further caused ridicule and shunning from others?
It's your limited view of reality.
No! It's ours!
Again, who cares what is demonstrable in someones view (aka imagination)?! We care what is demonstrable in the same objective manifest reality that we all share. This is another pillar of science.
Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?
There are many reasons, but the main one is due to the behavior of water (laws of hydrostatics). The oceans and other large water bodies CAN exist upon the flat top of a cube. They cannot on the sides and bottom. This is also demonstrable at any scale you choose to do the demonstration on. Things are obviously even worse with a sphere - any scale demonstration will show you those same laws of hydrostatics (ultimately - once the water stops moving, that is) that haven't changed in centuries.
And vice versa!
The things i am talking about are the laws of science. They apply to anyone who is studying or practicing it! The point that you seem to be missing is that the spherical worldview is a belief millennia old (has not been empirically validated) and that the laws of science plainly contradict that belief.
I agree that this doesn't make it impossible that the world is spherical (i.e. that belief happens/ed to be correct), it just makes it very unlikely and would require new/amended laws in order for it to become scientifically possible.
You may believe your own observations are universal
In science we don't need to believe, and belief significantly hampers it! Furthermore, belief is the enemy of all knowledge and objective study of any kind (it's known as bias).
The observations are not just mine and as they are demonstrable - can be repeated by anyone. Anyone is equally qualified to conduct or find the observations of others that contradict them. Such contradictions do not exist to the best of my knowledge and research. Again, you are most welcome and encouraged to supply such things! If i am wrong, i should like to know it. Hopefully, you feel the same way.
We meaning who?
I used "I" in the quote, but in general when i use "we" i am talking about us - you and i, humanity, and/or those knowledgeable in science.
you may have your own unique view on it vs others.
That's the wonderful thing about laws; they are objective. It isn't a "view", it is a repeatable measurement. A demonstrable behavior of nature; one of which is that water's surface at rest (barring negligible surface tension artifact) is always flat, level, and horizontal. This has been a law for over 3 centuries only because it is repeatable, demonstrable, and has no measurement to the contrary (under natural conditions, i mention this default/universal caveat because with enough energy input you can fight against water's natural behavior and the laws of hydrostatics).
Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically
In that specific context it was to remind you of how silly your question was. We don't research the "cube earth" because there is no research of others to study which concludes/posits a cube earth (that i am aware of), and we don't [shouldn't/musn't] study the shape of the earth assuming it cubic (or flat, or spherical) because such bias would prevent objective study!
Who is we?
In that context it was : humanity.
Is it fair to say then that you simply believe that the world is not a globe?
As i keep telling you, i work very hard (and it is central to flat earth research, as well as necessary for the chance at objective study of any kind) not to believe anything!
I used to believe the world was spherical, just as we all were raised to from childhood. Now i no longer believe that, and through my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it. Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)
In your own perspective, yes
No, in reality! Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality. In reality, we can trivially demonstrate that weight is not always a force that points downwards. We can also demonstrate that it is intrinsic to the matter itself, and there is no possible matter without weight.
But it's just a belief that it applies universally in all environments, unless you've been there.
It is established the same way everything in scientific law is - repeated observation/measurement. It is true that the laws of nature may be different at some wacky location but - until and unless we can get there to measure that wacky difference - the principle of uniformitarianism is a given and a pillar of science. You may believe that things happen differently elsewhere or under some special circumstance, but until you confirm it through observation/measurement - it's just belief.
It is true, however - that science is always provisional and subject to change (often extreme change) as new data is collected. The foundation of uniformitarianism, on which science is built, is a speculative posit, i agree - however, it has been a largely valuable one.
Science can only make partial positive statements, never absolute ones. When i say the surface of the earth can't be spherical, it is due to the laws of nature that we established on its surface.
Well, no, because I was asking about you, specifically. Not the royal you
You mean the royal we? You were only asking me, and i was only responding to you. My answers are my own.
You asked why i don't study the "cube earth". I answered that question for myself, and cannot speak for anyone else. You said "exactly", indicating that you now understand why i don't. Are you still misunderstanding something?
I understand why "we" don't, but not why "you" don't.
I am a part of we, my friend!
Just as suspicions about the world being flat could also be wrong
Correct, which is why suspicion, aka belief, must always be identified and excised if you wish to be even remotely capable of objective study (of anything).
as well as our current understanding of weight only acting downward.
That is more or less demonstrable - aka, a law. However weight doesn't act in any direction necessarily - it is just an intrinsic property of matter. Wether that weight is directed down, up, or neither is defined by its relationship to the media it displaces.
Precisely!
And that is precisely the reason we don't research the "cube earth". Looks like you have, and now understand, your answer.
Nope, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do research into it
There is nothing to research if nothing about the "cube earth" exists to study...
if you are keeping an open mind about the possibilities of what the shape would be
As i said before, in order for the cube earth to be consistent with what we measure and observe - the known world would have to be on its topmost face. This is certainly not a possibility that we can or should completely rule out.
However, flatly transitioning from the spherical worldview merely juxtaposing/projecting the known world onto a cube would be nonsensical and against the laws of physics for the same reasons that the spherical earth is.
It seems by your actions that you suspect the earth is flat,
What actions? I have plainly told you that i work hard not to "suspect" anything (and excise such suspicions, aka beliefs), and to only deal with what i can know and thoroughly validate.
On a local level, the land and water are generally flat, but the earth is a LOT larger than that. Indeed, if we are wrong about the earth's shape - we could easily be quite wrong about its total size as well.
Exactly!
Exactly. That's why we don't research "the cube earth", or "the spherical earth", or "the flat earth". We just study "the earth" and its shape without such biases (ideally).
I mean there are many more options than spherical, concave, and flat, of course.
Of course. In many gross depictions of flat earth it is depicted as hemispherical, and i've even encountered someone who thinks it is shaped like a ziggurat (i think an inverted one).
Have you done research into a cuboid earth?
I've never encountered a vocal "cubist" outside the art world - have you? Again, due to the natural behavior of water and assuming the earth is 70%+ covered in it, if it were a cube, the world we know would be on the top face of it. Some think this is generally what masons mean by "on the square"
Again, if you seek to determine the shape of the world through research - it is necessary to eliminate such biases for objective study of any kind. You research the earth and its shape, not the "spherical earth" or the "cube earth" etc.
Of all the ones i encountered, the rectilineator was one of the more fascinating things i researched in regards to measuring and concluding that the earth is actually concave.
Have you done research into shapes other than flat earth?
It is best to simply research the earth's shape directly - whatever it may be, ideally without such preconceptions/beliefs/biases.
In terms of evaluating other peoples ideas / conclusions as to the shape of the world - yes. I have evaluated/researched spherical and concave notions, as well as those that think it is flat.
A central part of flat earth research is identifying and eliminating/suppressing such beliefs. I attempt to deal with what i actually know (and have validated), which is what objective study (the ideal) requires.
Belief (e.g. suspicion, speculation) is the enemy of knowledge and objective study of any kind.
I know that the world isn't spherical the way we are taught. I could guess [suspect] as to the actual shape, but that is exactly what brought the ancient greeks to the incorrect conclusion (which we inherited) millennia ago.
Our discussion about a scale model of the earth comes to mind
Was there more of that conversation to be had? I think we had pretty well concluded it. You were in search of a completely accurate scale model of the earth - and in general, one doesn't exist - regardless of what shape it actually is.
As well as our talks about Antarctica
Again, i don't think there was much of anything left unsaid and certainly nothing ignored. You may not have been satisfied with my answers, but that is a different matter.
If there really is anything you asked/discussed that you think was ignored, please cite/link to it specifically so i can properly address it!
How come serious attempts at discussion get ignored
Do you have an example? Personally, i try not to ignore anything, though life certainly gets in the way and sometimes it takes me a while to respond.
and/or get empty responses actively withholding information?
Personally, i try to answer questions as thoroughly as i can. However, the one exception is when doing so will make the student weaker at doing their own research and thinking for themselves.
Im very happy to help any earnest students in their research, but i should not, and will not do it for them.
That i don't know (and no one does, in my view). It would require measuring the entire earth and ideally validating those measurements repeatedly.
Provisionally, if the earth is 70%+ covered in liquid water then because of the laws of hydrostatics - it certainly cannot be the size and shape we are required to learn (and repeat) it is from childhood.
It's my quote.
Try the other one i mentioned if you are looking in more modern hydrostatics textbooks.
Otherwise, the older the hydrostaticks text, the more plainly it will tend to be written. The surface of still water (of significant surface area) is always level, flat, and horizontal.
You won't because you can't
Is that why you refuse to look something up? Because you can't? That's sad :(
You are all the same.
And yet, i'm not a flat earther... You are very confused. Try asking questions instead of making assumptions - you're a lousy psychic.
Conclusion: you made up this "law".
"Everything anyone says that i don't like is made up. Luckily i just believe this to be true religiously, otherwise i'd have to look things up" - you :(
Just another flat Earth liar who cannot substantiate his claim.
I can and did. Did you try looking it up? Where did you try looking? Was it nowhere?
as predicted, you cannot provide any actual data.
I can, but i won't because it will make you an even less competent student than you already are :( If i feed a man a fish...
flat earther never can.
There are no flat earthers, and i am certainly not one in any case. You sound confused.
Because the periodicity is the same today - yes, i think we do. But presuming that ancient astronomers with written language lacked the ability to record the frequency of astronomical events competently seems a little extreme to me.
Much like our measurements today, and for the same reasons, i would expect that the measurements themselves are reflective of reality (i.e. reasonably accurate) - however the interpretations of those measurements are often wildly wrong.