Let me ask you this: How many RE models are there (clue its less than 2) and then how many FE models are there? What does that tell you.
It tells me that you are trolling. There are multiple RE models of gravity.
Where are these "multiple RE models of gravity" that differ in the behaviour of gravitation in our vicinity - ie within the Solar System and even relatively near stars.
All "RE models of gravity" have gravitation behaving extremely close to
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation - even GR differs almost imperceptibly.
Disagreements about the age of the universe, size of the universe,
These are totally irrelevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe.
model of the sun,
Where are these various models of the Sun that differ significantly in its external operation?
And how is it relevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe?
nature of the galaxies, etc.
Again this is totally irrelevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe.
On nearly every subject we can find disagreement, many in the mainstream, regardless of whether you only declare only one view to be 'correct' .
Really? Where is there any disagreement as to the shape and size of the Earth, the Solar System and anything in astronomy that would affect these.
If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old
The age of the Earth is totally irrelevant to it's shape and to the Heliocentric Solar System.
and motionless.
Which is totally irrelevant to the Earth's shape and this is the
Flat Earth Society.
Sort out the shape of the Earth before bothering your head over whether it rotates or not.
The rotation of the Earth cannot be proven without either astronomical observations or some sort of measuring instruments.
But a large Sun and all the planets etc orbiting a relatively small Earth is quite contrary to even the simply laws of motion.
The different views on RE actually outnumbers anything FE produces. Asking us not to compare that is total hypocracy.
So you say but all you have is words.
You have no shown relevant disagreement other that the Heliocentric vs Geocentric systems and "mainstream science" has no disagreement there.
Geocentrism is promoted by only a few, such as Robert Sungenis who at best can be called a pseudo-scientist with virtually no understanding of physics.
On the other hand, flat Earthers differ on some major or obvious issues such as:
- The continental layout of the flat Earth.
Most claim this is North Pole centred with Antarctica as a ring continent and an impassable ice-wall around the outside as on the left, below.
A few others claim that both the North and South Poles are discrete points and the continents are laid out something like as on the right:
Ice Wall Map the usual "Flat Earth Map". | | Sandokhan's "True" Flat Earth Map |
That Ice-Wall map is quite impossible for a number of reasons
one being the apparent rotation of the stars about a single South Celestial Pole and
another being the numerous polar circumnavigations of the Earth that travel via both poles as in Polar Circumnavigation.
And the bipolar layout is equally impossible because of the numerous crossings of the Pacific Ocean by air and sea including:
Latitude Zero: Mike Horn’s Horizontal Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe at the Equator
He'd surely have noticed falling off the edge or going all that extra distance to cross the Pacific Ocean. He wrote:Latitude Zero: Mike Horn’s Horizontal Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe at the Equator, Stage 3
It was back onto my trimaran in the Pacific Ocean to cross from Ecuador to Borneo, sailing through the Galapagos Islands, completing 8685 nautical miles in 2 months and 16 days.
I would claim that if flat Earthers cannot even decide on a basic layout of their flat Earth then they have nothing!
- The cause and behaviour of "things falling down".
Some flat Earthers assume that the Earth accelerates upwards at 9.8 m/s2 and that mimics gravity fairly well but has many problems.
Others accept essentially Newtonian Gravitation and claim that is acceptable on an infinite flat Earth.
Then we have the many who have some sort of relative density/buoyancy theory etc, etc.
So the differences between flat Earthers on the layout and other issues are very fundamental and far-reaching and have been quuite recent.
On the other hand, the shape and size of the Globe have changed little for well over a thousand years, notwithstanding the confusion of Christopher Columbus.
And the basic Heliocentric Solar System has changed little since the time of Newton. All that has been added to that has been more accurate measurements, the discovery of more planets etc and GR explaining some very slight anomalies.