[10]There is a difference between establishing what the best model for reality is and how to make you believe that model. Based on the information provided by flat-earthers, the best model is the geocentric round earth-model. Why ? Because of TINA : there is no alternative.
The best model is the real model.[12] None of us possess that model in terms of physically proving it.
So the best model has to be the one that logically appears more feasible than others.[13]
This means the the global model you adhere to is way down on the list in terms of logical.[14]
[12] Wrong. Reality is not a model and is impossible for anyone to grasp. A model is a simplified version or representation of something.
[13] Wrong again. Feasibility is no criterion for a good model (at least not to scientists). A cube is a feasible model for reality, yet for most purposes it is a bad one, because it fails on an important criterion for the quality of a model (at least to scientists) : how useful it is for making predictions. On that criterion the round, geocentric model beats your flat-earth model hands down. For example, the former can explain why air stays on earth; the latter can not.
[14] How is that supposed to follow ?
If you do not see gaping holes as problematic for a worldview, what are your criteria for the quality of a worldview ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
That you fail to see them, does not imply they don't exist. I and others have pointed out several problems. Are you blind or do you refuse to see ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
No flat-earther has to my knowledge, and certainly not you in this thread, provided a coherent flat-earth model that is consistent with the evidence.
You mean nobody has provided a model that fits the magical one made up for you?
No. I mean what I said.
To my knowledge, all evidence.
To your knowledge?
What knowledge is this?
I have no knowledge indicating that there is evidence inconsistent with the absence of a hydrogen-helium ice dome.
I won't share all my knowledge with you because that would be too much work.
Sceptics require something you can't provide : evidence.
Ditto.
Ambiguous.
So, we can choose bettween a working model and a collection of hypotheses.
A working model is not a reality...but, yes, you can pick and choose...as you have. It does not mean you know it to be reality.[15] It means you are schooled into a belief system which may not be reality.[16]
[15] I have never claimed otherwise.
[16] Of course it doesn't mean that. It doesn't even imply that. Yet the belief system I am schooled in is not reality and neither is yours.
Again, how does your air freeze into a solid dome which prevents further air from escaping?
If it freezes then it would take up basically no volume and just fly off into space or crash down onto the surface. Over time this would allow all the air to leave.
In the absense of gravity, it should fly of.
When you fail to understand it from my side, it can do anything you wish.
You are mistaken. I fail to understand it from your side and yet, alas, air cannot do anything I wish.
How very true!
Start taking your advice.
When you saybsomehing that doesnt make sense, we question it.
When you refuse to answer it... well thats no real proof is it now?
Feel free to question, as I do.
As for refusal to answer. I certainly do answer.[17]
The issue is in my answers not being accepted as an answer because it doesn't suit.[18]
Whose issue is that?[19]
[17] You forgot to mention that you certainly do fail to answer.
[18] Suiting isn't the appropriate word but when you do give answers, they are often either unintelligible or inconsistent with the best models we have.
[19] The issue of those worried about your belief in a fantasy.
We are all force fed in all ways, shapes and forms.
However, at school we are especially force fed because we have zero choice but to follow a curriculum and be quizzed on the absorbance of it, at the end.
It doesn't mean the learning is all reality based[20]....but if that learning is told to you as being reality based and you accept it without question then later you teach that to others or refuse to accept there could be alternatives to that[21], then it's basically a case of, do you hold that same view and go with the mass flow, or do you step outside of that box and put your own mind to use in an alternate thought process.
[20] It doesn't mean it is not reality based either.
[21] There could have been, but there aren't.
You, on the otherhand, are a deep thinker, outside the box, alternative, blah, blah, blah. However, the skepti rule is really:
- If someone accepts mainstream knowledge it's only because it was "handed to them on a platter", they were indoctrinated and never got out.
That's basically a truth. This isn't about you or globalists...this is about all of us with whatever we accept without proof of reality.
Most people believe the round, geocentric world model because they have been taught it. However, it turns out the if one does investigate it, it holds up to scrutiny.
Which puts the globe model up quite high, as that can explain so much of observed reality without appealing to self-contradictory nonsense, and which is yet to be refuted.
No. There is no observed reality for your globe. There is a perceived reality for you, based on what you're told
Sceptics don't evaluate models based on how much reality there is for it, but based on evidence. By that criterion the round, geocentric model wins by a landslide. Also, the evidence that would exist if the model were false, is strangely absent.
First tell me how your air magically doesn't fly away?
Tell me how it expands with the agitation decreasing?
It expands because it is not under the pressure it was. It is first agitating to get to be expanded. This agitation is due to dense agitation creating heat due to it.
What is dense agitation and how does it create heat ?