Thanks for admitting that.
I stated it clearly in the very first comment to you in this thread.
Can you explain why that is the case?
Because it hasn’t been built, and there is no real need to build one. As i said, models are tools for specific use. What would the use of such a model be?
Besides, models of the entire world take centuries if not millennia to compile (and that is WITH phenomenal funding and vast numbers of people working on it). Expecting one to exist when you snap your fingers is crazy.
There have been maps before Google Earth, did you know that?
Of course! Did you know maps are not scientific models (they are maps)? :)
Thanks again for proving the point of my thread.
Your intended point of this thread is to waste your own time. It’s “how to keep an idiot busy”. You are asking for something that doesn’t exist, knowing that it doesn’t exist, and then patting yourself on the back. You could have done that in an empty room offline.
Unbeknownst to you when you “asked” your rhetorical question, the real point is that having a model or not having a model is meaningless. As i said before, and you ignored - we have several geocentric models of the world being the center of the universe. They exist, they work, and we have them. Does that prove that the world is the center of the universe?
If i surprised you and provided you with a comprehensive model of a flat world (which is trivial to create - it just takes a long time, typically centuries, to do) - would that prove the world was flat? The answer to all the above questions is no, and you ought to understand why.
Ask someone who accepts a globe earth to show a map or model and they will be happy to do it.
If the world is flat, all maps are flat earth maps. In fact, the vast majority of maps depict the world as flat. There are many available “flat earth” maps.
As for a model, it is true there is no scientific flat earth model - but i am pretty certain that if i asked you (and certainly most all who “accept a globe earth”) for a scientific model of it - you would fail to provide it. You would mistake google earth, or a toy globe for a scientific model :(
Ask the same of a flat earther and they wriggle and deflect and try to get into philosophical discussions but they simply won't tell you who the Flat Earth looks like because they know that any map or model that is out there is bullshit.
There are no “flat earthers” in the way you mean. You were “asking” products and/or agents of a psyop.
I’m not a flat earther, but i neither wriggled nor deflected your questions. There are plenty of maps available but none of them are flawless; this doesn’t vary wether the mapmaker conceives the world to be spherical or flat. Perfect maps don’t exist, and don’t need to - they are merely tools for getting us where we are intending to go.
I don’t care much for cartography.
Maps, much like models - and for the same reasons, are tools for specific use (typically, travel). As long as a map is useful, it continues to be used.
We don’t study maps to measure what shape anything is. It is a common, and encouraged, mistake to confuse/conflate topography with topology. They are separate and distinct.
There are many AE maps that are useful enough for our travel purposes, but this is different than representative of / accurate for the entire world. There are no flawless maps, and this doesn’t vary with the conception of the shape of the world.
I created it for earnest researchers to ask questions/share answers, discuss, and exchange views as well as approaches.
Please feel free to share your views, questions, criticisms, resources etc!
Interesting... Can you please try it again? The url works for me, and it should work for you too.
If it doesn’t, please let me know what site you are using (scored.co or communities.win) and the browser you are using (also wether it is desktop or mobile) and i will submit the issue to the site admins (or you can) over on meta - as well as give you the full link.
no, it’s not a website - it’s a community here on this site.
Thank you for proving my point.
As i said, that isn’t a “point”. Asking for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” no one will be able to give it to you is a fool’s errand.
Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. That is the “point” you are entirely missing. We don’t study models to understand anything about reality, we study reality and then build models for specific limited purpose. All models are wrong, but some are useful for a limited time.
That is a nonsensical statement
Only because you have been encouraged to misunderstand what a model is and what it is for. Having a model that the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric model) - of which several currently exist - does not make it so. Do you understand what i’m saying? If not, please speak up / ask questions!
A model can be an accurate representation of reality
Possibly, but that is not their purpose. Models are built for specific use, but “accurate representation of reality” is not one of them. They are inherently built of a small (and flawed) subset of the data that comprises reality, which means they are always wrong and at absolute best incomplete. It’s godel’s proof by other verbiage.
We don’t study models to understand reality. We study reality to understand reality.
Why are you unable to show a representation of a flat Earth?
There are plenty of representations of a flat earth. Look up AE maps, and the gleason map. There are no maps without flaws, however - for the same reasons there are no models which are flawless either.
The point is that having a representation or not is irrelevant. The world is whatever shape it is despite what your conceptions, maps, models describe it as. Conceptions, maps, and models constantly change and are discarded/changed each generation as they stop serving their function and need to be. Through all of that, reality remains the same - and doesn’t care what we think or how we depict it.
Having a model, or not having a model, has no impact on reality.
A model of the flat Earth. It's literally there in the thread title.
I know it is hard to hold multiple conversations simultaneously so i forgive you for forgetting who you are talking to and what we’ve already spoken about.
I already told you very clearly that, in regards to “model” in a scientific sense of the word, there is no such thing.
However, models aren’t used to determine reality - so not having one or having one is meaningless.
As predicted, none of the flat Earthers is able to show one.
“Flat earthers” don’t really exist in the way they have been presented to you. They are agents and/or products of a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) psyop.
In any case, asking someone for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” they won’t be able to give it to you is pretty silly.
If you truly want to learn more about earnest flat earth research (as opposed to the psyop you seem to have some experience with), and why people who study it conclude ostensibly wild things (like that the world is not spherical the way we are taught) - please join us on flatearthresearch to exchange views!
1st of all, how many of those things do you think is looking for the edge? Is it certainly none?
Secondly, who says there is an edge to find - or even if there is, that it can be reached? Many people believe the universe does not have an edge...
That’s why it’s named TallestShil
There you go again, talking to yourself.
Once again, if you want to talk to yourself - there is no reason to post.
Let me know if your programmer ever fixes you and you can link to even one of my posts - let alone one which contains what you frequently lie about.
Until then remain silent.
Show what? Evidence for the world being flat?
The most obvious evidence comes from hydrostatics (the study of water at rest). Water cannot and does not constantly curve convexly in the manner the globe model requires it to.
The belief that it does, because it must for the world to be spherical (and believed largely covered in water), is just that - an unempirical [aka unscientific] belief.
When water’s surface at rest is measured - barring negligible surface tension artifacts and under natural conditions - it is always level, flat, and horizontal. There are no exceptions, which is why it has been a law of hydrostatics for more than 3 centuries.
I feel it is important to mention/caution that having evidence for something does not make something true.
You linked to your own post :(
Useless bot. Your programmer should be punished for such incompetence.
Literally quoted you directly.
Link to when i said it, you lying bot.
Says the “person” who can’t read or respond to things that are actually said, and instead quotes themselves :(
Next time you feel like talking to yourself, there is no need to post here. Just another reminder.
Then what is there?
Evidence; much of it scientific in origin/nature.
Just delusion and fantasy?
There sure is always plenty of that! Typically, that is principally what mythology is.
Delusion and fantasy automatically fill the void of ignorance - it’s biological/constitutional.
Earth is not flat.
Then why do you keep saying that?
Stop talking to the voices in your head - they’re not your friends.
it reads like an episode of captain planet. i have concluded that it is a hoax, perpetrated by or on the children - assuming it happened at all.
The incident in the 60’s at the westall school in australia is orders of magnitude more interesting, credible, verified, and verifiable.
Lol. All praise the almighty model.
There is no flat earth model in a scientific sense of the word model.
Your (encouraged) misunderstanding is that models are useful/used in determining reality scientifically. Models are tools built for limited and specific purpose. We don’t study them to better understand reality.
We study reality to do that, not models!
dude the stars in the southern hemisphere are different than the ones in the northern hemisphere
Sure.
because we are on a giant ball.
That doesn’t follow from the first statement. The shape of the world is not dependent upon the sky - that’s silly!
Even snipers have to take in the curvature of the earth when firing
Lol. Find a sniper, and ask them if this is true. People on the internet also say other silly things about snipers, like they have to take into account the rotational speed of the earth. People say lots of silly things on the internet.
No one is shooting at targets blindly around the curve of the earth - that’s ridiculous. How far do you think snipers shoot?
Stop smoking the CIA crack.
Agreed! You seem confused about what i am saying and why, and yet aren’t disagreeing with or addressing anything i have actually said :(
Mythology is believing that gravity and mass are not interrelated
Belief has no place in science, and is directly across purposes to it (it’s called bias). Believing that gravitation is caused by mass is a religious/mythological position, not a scientific one.
There is a very good reason that, since their invention 3+ centuries ago, no progress has been made on understanding how mass could ever cause gravitation or be consistent with observation even if it did. There is a noteworthy reason why such progress will never occur.
Mythology is believing the earth is flat despite all of the evidence against it
There is evidence for LOT’s of things, but that doesn’t make them true.
Mythology is the human default. Science is much more difficult and is the procedure intended to suppress and surpass that inherent bias.
Believing the earth is spherical, as the vast majority (perhaps even yourself?) does, is every bit as mythologically/religiously based as believing it flat.
Mythology is calling something scientism merely because you don't agree
Not really, that would be more of a rhetorical tactic and/or delusion.
Scientism is belief in / worship of a mundane technical procedure, and its practitioners and acolytes.
When science is based upon belief, it is scientifically proper to call it scientism.
Celestial bodies are oblate sphereoids, all of them
So we are required to believe and repeat. But belief and rote do not make things true, and they certainly don’t make them science. Understanding, acutely, what science is and why is critical to being able to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion taught under its guise. Perhaps this is the reason scientific illiteracy is so ubiquitous - to stop that from being possible.
The earth formed, it was not made.
Once again, this is a belief. You want the earth to have formed itself without being made the exact same way a religious zealot wants it to have been made without randomly having been formed.
With such bias, if the world were made and not randomly formed you would never discover it and vice versa.
Scientism is a scourge.
I recommend checking out the documentary/catholic propaganda called “the principle” for more on this topic.
The same thing above in regards to a geocentric view is true about a stationary earth. It is philosophical bias which prevents that from being accepted or taught as a viable model - not observation or science.
The earth is round, all planets are round
So we are required to believe and repeat, but round isn’t necessarily the same as spherical.
Gravity is not a theory, it is a Law.
That’s true, and woefully misunderstood by most. The law of gravity is thousands of years old, and is simply the phenomenon of falling - “what goes up , must come down”. Laws do not, and cannot, speculate on the cause of the law - that’s what theories are for!
Gravitation is the (pseudo) theory, billed/advertised as a law, which supposedly explains the cause of the law of gravity. It is a few hundred years old, and is what most people mean (incorrectly) when they say “gravity”. It is a fundamental dogma in the creation mythology of scientism - not gravity.
Tomayto tomaughto
Are you sure? Why wouldn’t the mass surrounding you now pull you outwards towards it? To phrase it another way; Why wouldn’t the ground above you pull you upwards towards it while the ground beneath you attracted you downwards lesser than it did at the surface (because there is now less matter beneath you to attract you)? Because the mass of the world doesn’t change (much anyhow), wouldn’t that mean that the gravitational pull would be the same no matter where on or in earth you were - just the distribution/direction of that force would change? If you could reach the center, would you feel no gravitation and be weightless because the mass of the world were roughly equal in all directions? Or would you be torn apart?
These are all “thought experiments” demonstrating fundamental flaws in the concept of gravitation. No one knows the answer to them.
I am saying that gravitation is fiction. Your weight doesn’t change unless you lose or gain weight/matter (by eating). Digging a hole, no matter how deep, or rocketing into the sky won’t change it at all.