Well I'm curious on what values were measured regarding the dome.-
Who measured what dome?
Also, how can you say that you've never seen a dome depiction in egyptian reliefs when earlier you declared this?
Figurative vs literal. The god ra can certainly be reasonably interpreted (in such depictions) to be the dome found in subsequent (and textually a direct descendant) depictions - such as the bible.
Dome to us implies hemisphere or portion of hemisphere. Even in the bible the dome is described as a tent. Tents can be hemispheric in our day, but they weren't back then (or even 50 years ago).
Dome figuratively, yes. Dome literally, perhaps not. The shape of the dome is not certain, assuming it exists - which, as i said, is a scientifically sound conclusion.
You must measure correctly to predict
This is incorrect. Even to make correct predictions does not require measurement. This is, of course, besides the point.
You are in FLAT DENIAL of the ENTIRE SCIENCE
Map projection is obviously not a science.
From my perspective, you are in "flat denial" of the science of hydrostatics (a branch of physics).
The field of science they teach 10 and 12 year-olds, that nobody ever taught you, mandates it.
This is wrong. Nothing abstract (in this case math or any other language) mandates anything about reality - nor can it.
The world is whatever shape it is, and the arbitrary coordinate system and/or deeply held beliefs of cartographers have no bearing on that shape.
YOUR predictions of where things will be, will be WRONG
Maps are not for prediction, but for travel. If the map is wrong, we fix it.
Your fervent and belligerent belief will not change the shape of the world. The real question remains; if you were wrong about the shape of the world - would you want to know it? Or would you prefer to just keep yelling, meaninglessly and pathetically, online?
longitude and latitude could not accurately predict on it's surface.
We don't use longitude and latitude for prediction. We use it for location.
Coordinate systems are arbitrary, despite your want that they be providential.
The lick of sense missing here is no one having ever taught you Geometry
Geometry isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing the shape of the world, and measuring/determining it with certainty. "Longitude/latitude" is not one of the ways to do that. You've been misinformed.
And prediction can only be done with proper measurement
Actually, no. But i get your meaning.
Flat maps DON'T work better
Of course they do. That's why we have used them for millennia and continue to today.
vs EVERY MAP MAKER who EVER EXISTED
Again, the depiction and coordinate system chosen (and even believed to be correct) by the mapmaker are arbitrary and irrelevant to the actual shape of the world. The map is a tool for travel, nothing more.
That's catastrophic failure of your lack of knowledge ....
Everything you say beyond this line is restating the same misunderstanding. Of course the world is depicted as spherical, and has a coordinate system that is consistent with that depiction. It's not a coincidence, nor providence of the worlds actual shape! We believe it's spherical and have for thousands of years! It has no bearing on the actual shape of the world - it's just arbitrarily chosen to be consistent with that belief.
If the world is flat, and/or not spherical, then it is your "catastrophic failure and lack of knowledge" we are actually discussing. Right?
So even though the ancient egyptians conceived a flat earth with a dome
I've never seen a dome depiction in egyptian reliefs (though it could certainly exist). Typically it is depicted as the god ra stretched out with his back arched over the world and is not a perfect dome. This is somewhat similar/connected to the atlas mythology.
But, yes the world was known to be flat by the ancient egyptians and covered by a god.
ergo they may be incorrect.
Everyone can always be incorrect! That's kind of a central pillar of flat earth research.
So about 8,000 miles? That is what's taught, but I don't know if you have another value in mind
Does the particular value matter that much? If the world isn't spherical, then the numbers are most likely wrong in any case.
The fact you thought the Earth even might POSSIBLY be flat, is PROOF POSITIVE: can ONLY MEAN no one has EVER explained how longitude and latitude
As i explained in the last comment - the coordinate system we ascribe/use is entirely arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the shape of the world. People are also encouraged to make this erroneous conflation with timezones. I find it patently absurd and plainly nonsensical - just look at the statements :
The world has to be spherical because "timezones".
or in your case
The world has to be spherical because "geometry"/"longitude and latitude".
It's doesn't make a lick of sense.
and learn to sail and fly.
Yes, sailing and flying exist. No, this doesn't prove the world is spherical... Why on earth would it?!
The world was decided to be spherical (also arbitrarily) long before longitude and latitude. They played absolutely no part in determining the shape of the world - then and now. "Your" entire argument (your is in quotes because it was given to you, and is not your own!) is retroactively backfilled/contrived.
We both agree that latitude and longitude work. We can also agree that if the world is flat that, most likely, the known sizes for the latitude lines in the "southern hemisphere" are wrong - as well as the known distances between longitude lines.
Many people think similar things about maps. Maps prove this and that about the shape of the world.
But maps and the coordinate systems on them are merely tools for travel. They don't contain (or depend on) the shape of the world, nor do they need to! When they work, we use them - when they don't we change them. The world, and its shape, remains the same.
The real question is, if the world really were flat (or at least not spherical the way we are taught), would you want to know it? Even if knowing the truth brought you ridicule, and even exile?
Thank you for proving my point.
You don't have a point. You're just yelling at invisible and largely fictional "flat earthers" because you were encouraged to :(
How far does the dome reach, stretched out?
We'd need to measure it, assuming it exists to measure, in order to know that!
Is there a measured (roughly) diameter of this dome?
Some speculate that it is the diameter of the known world, others that the dome is much further than those known bounds.
The existence of a dome, to me, is a logical conclusion of the existence and persistence of air pressure on earth - however that says nothing as to the size, composition, or nature of such a dome (even the shape - dome - may be incorrect).
Tell us nobody ever explained to you why Latitude and Longitude are the only way to predict surface point-locations on Earth,
This isn't about prediction, it's about measurement. A flat map works better than a globe shaped one - which is why our maps are flat.
Assuming the world is flat, the latitude lines are circles and the longitude lines are axial lines from the north pole. The arbitrary coordinate system we use has absolutely no bearing on the shape of the world. This is an encouraged erroneous conflation.
How did anything i have to say mean "nobody ever explained geometry" to you? Please walk me through that thought process.
I was a 12 year old too...
Do we know that these charts are (mostly) correct?
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.
As in, are the rough measurements/design reflective of reality?
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.
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).
As i already said (regardless of the shape of the world) it can be soundly deduced that a "dome" (container of some sort) exists because we have sustained and consistent air pressure. Without a container, that would not be possible - there are several scientific laws which demonstrate this.
Everything real can be measured. Other than intriguing rumors of "skystone" and its description in the bible (crystal of a pale hue) we don't know what the dome is made of, assuming it is real and tangible.