Yes, just one of my main complaints with "Flat Earth Theories" is the way guessed ideas are dragged in with no evidence or justification.
I get your point, but that is not gonna hold true all the time, but people here assume it does.
And what is likely to change that situation?
Your model seems to be just another like JRoweSkeptic's "Dual Earth Theory", maybe you should chase it up.
Yeah, that one is interesting, has numerous differences though, but the map layout idea with two poles and hemiplanes with nearly identical circumference is consistent with what I accept.
But even with two separate circular hemiplanes the distance from either pole to the equator has to be very close to 10,000 km.
Yes, I agree with that.
Thus makes the circumference of the equator a bit over 62,800 km, but the circumference of the equator on the real earth is a little over 40,000 km.
That is incorrect, in the model I accept, the bent aether gives non-Euclidean characterisitcs in the non-inertial frame of reference of an observer on Earth.
And where is the justification for "bent aether"? This is just another case of what I call guesses.
Sure Einstein's GR has curved spacetime but in our vicinity only by an almost imperceptible amount,
yet you propose enough curvature to, presumably, make a flat surface look like a sphere.
You cannot justify that without a sound basis, not just something you drag out of your head.
I assume you read through it, that's good,
If you mean
JRowe's, I have read a fair bit of it and find it full of unsubstantiated and illogical assumptions.
If you mean your "non-Euclidean" theory, no I have seen nothing on it.
I want it to be discussed more in the future here. My turn I guess.
You flat earthers seem to relish making everything so complicated, when the rotating Globe has such simple and obvious reasons.
I am convinced the globe earth proponents are wrong on this one.
You are? Look at all the guesses and excuses that flat earthers have to drag in to explain such simple things as:
- A sun that stays the same size from rising to setting and that explains sunrises and sunsets in appearance timing or direction.
- A moon that stays the same size from rising to setting and that explains phases and lunar eclipses.
- A map with correct distances and directions.
And all the rest.
From what I have seen, the "evidence" for your
flatter than a pancake earth boils down to "the horizon looks flat".
Then you have to scrabble around looking for excuses for the numerous things that will not fit.
Guess what! The horizon on the Globe should look flat till you reach a very high altitude.
So many, like you, seem to dream up hypotneses that have no physical or theotetical basis, yet are so complicated that it becomes almost impossible to "prove that they are wrong".
We saw a simple case of this in that magnetic FE theory.
OK, present you hypothesis, and we'll see, but why? Where is this overwhelming evidence for a flat earth anyway?
And you seem be doing is another making another
John Davis "duck theory".
If it looks like a . . . ., if it walks like a . . . . .if it quacks like a . . . . .etc, it probably is a . . . . .
Over to you.