Its not necessary because all that is necessary are the rules that are needed to be performed; rules that were calculated using empricism, tabulation and mathematics - not some imaginary theoretical layer that attempts to say something. I have asked you again and again for an answer - how does science tell us the shape of the earth if its powers are limited to prediction through tabulation based rules?
The fact that they use a globe as a model again says nothing of the shape of the earth. A flat non-euclidean closed surface earth would have an identical map. As would a model where the North pole and south pole were both in the center.
....
It does no such thing. The round earth theory takes into account the distance to the horizon to calculate an assumed curvature of the earth - this is in contradistinction to your claim that it works the other way around and that the formula somehow magically knew there was a curvature to the earth in spite of it being based off pure tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. You are putting the cart before the horse.
It also seems you are again and again purposefully missing the point.
Do the calculations provided by science work? Yes, more often than not.
Do they say anything about the shape of the earth? No; perhaps you can show me why they must rather than citing one after another when I already disproved your hypothesis by example: there have been many cultures over the years who have been able to calculate eclipses, or the distance to the horizon without the use of a 'round earth theory'. How did they do it? The same way they did any other science - by tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.
You really need to brush up on scientific theories and the scientific method. Theories are not just an “imaginary layer”, they are both predictive and explanatory. A hypothesis only becomes a theory after rigorous testing.
The shape of the earth is so ridiculously well established scientificly, I’m not even sure it still counts as a theory. And the reason isn’t based on any one calculation, but everything working together.
Flat Earth hypotheses (it’s really not a theory) doesn’t have a mathematical model that matches even the most day to day observations. The best you have is a few vague contradictory explanations, each one breaking another part of the “model”.
Your example of ancient civilizations tabulating certain astronomical events and making predictions based off them does not prove anything except that that’s what they did back then.
But modern science can do better than that. Take the discovery of Neptune. There was an anomaly in the orbit of Uranus. Some said there might be a problem with Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, others that there must be another substantial body beyond Neptune’s orbit. Urbain Le Verrier used Newton’s Laws and the Heliocentric model to calculate the position of this hypothetical planet.
When astronomers looked for this new plant based on Le Verrier’s predictions, it took less than a hour and they found it within 1 deg of the expected position. Not bad considering the data available and Le Verrier had to do all the calculations by hand.
This is the predictive power of modern science. Something you absolutely can not do without a mathematical model.
If you’re really serious about challenging the shape of the Earth, you’re going to need an actual model and start working on detailed explanations. Eventually, FEers would need to explain everything we see better than the heliocentric model and be able to make predictions to verify it.
Obviously you’re well short of that, so maybe just start by explaining what you mean by a “flat non-euclidean closed surface earth” or a “model where the North pole and south pole were both in the center”?