Its not difficult to grasp for those with an open mind.
That's right. For those with an open mind, it is quite easy to understand that even thought Earth is round, there can be data which can be scientific which can be used to support a FE model.
Only those close minded cultists would suggest otherwise and continually cling to their religious beliefs regardless of how many times it has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Neither do your attempts to somehow discredit Bhor
I'm not discrediting Bohr. You are.
Your attempts at trying to justify why there can't be FE models apply to Bohr.
I object to that BS, so I object to your attempt to discredit Bohr.
I use Bohr as an example to demonstrate how if we accept your BS, that means the products of your idols would not be models.
I'm not criticising him, I am criticising you.
But sure, yet again go ahead and entirely deflect from the point, and try to set up a pathetic strawman.
Instead of trying to prop up Bohr against this strawman of yours, how about you deal with the issue at hand?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, and then apply it to the work of Bohr.
See if your attempt to exclude FE models has also excluded the work of Bohr.
He was latterly proved to be mistaken but that is how science works.
No, he wasn't proven to be mistaken later.
It was known that his model did not work for any element other than hydrogen when it was made. And it was shown later to not even work for hydrogen.
The fact that YOU, Mr. Blockhead attempt to use the past work of a Nobel Prize winner and greatest scientist of the C20th is beyond a joke.
No, the fact that YOU, Mr Moron, continually deflect from the exposure of your pathetic dishonest double standard is beyond a joke.
It is truly pathetic, and shows just how pathetic and desperate your position is.
And no, despite what you say, :
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and “There can be a scientific FE model"
Then why do you continually refuse to address the data I have provided?
Is it because you know you can't?
Why do you need to keep on repeating this pathetic lie of yours?
How can something like the Flat Earth Belief that is inherently unscientific and anti-science produce any data let alone models that can be scientific?
I already have explained how something like the FE can have data to support it and can create models, and used the models of those you worship to demonstrate why.
Once more, if your delusional BS was true, then it would mean if something is false, it cannot have data collected to support it or be used to make a model for it.
That means all the outdated models of the atoms could have no data to support it and could not be models.
But you know that is BS.
You know that something being wrong doesn't mean you cannot obtain data which supports it, nor create a model based upon it.
For a lot of observations/measurements you cannot tell the difference between a FE and a RE.
This means such data can be collected scientifically and be used to create a FE model.
Show me
NO!
Stop trying to setup pathetic strawmen, and stop trying to shift the burden of proof, and stop repeating the same pathetic lies.
You claim there cannot be FE models, and there is no data which could be used to construct one.
The burden is on you to justify that BS of yours.
Especially as I have provided examples of data which can be used to construct a FE model, which you could only respond with by repeatedly ignoring it and continuing to lie by falsely claiming I haven't provided it.
Let me remind you should you produce an alleged FE scientific model out your Blockhead hat the criteria for one:
And let me remind you Mr Moron, that that is not a set of criteria to be a scientific model. That is a set of criteria used to judge how good a model it is.
But lets look at your criteria:
able to explain phenomena that were not used to develop the model.
The Bohr model was able to explain the phenomena that was used to develop the model, the frequencies of light emitted/absorbed by a hydrogen atom.
However, it couldn't explain phenomena that was not used to develop it, e.g. the frequencies of light emitted by any other atom.
As such, it fails this criteria.
So by the criteria you have presented, the Bohr model of the atom cannot be considered a scientific model.
Do you believe that the Bohr model is not a scientific model, or do you accept that your criteria is wrong?
It is of course an impossibility just as the notion of a workable flat earth map an impossibility. They are both impossibilities as the whole flat earth belief system is built on a fantasy wrapped in a fiction sitting atop a conspiracy with not a whiff of science in sight.
Baselessly asserting that it is an impossibility, does not make it so.
Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.
No, you changing the goalposts is you squirming.
Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-
“There can be a scientific FE model"
No, that came after the claim that there is plenty of data.
The claim regarding the scientific data was slightly different, where I pointed out the data I provided can be obtained in a scientific manner.
You are trying to use semantics to pretend I am lying, and in doing so just lying yourself.
I have provided examples of data. This data can be obtained scientifically.
This allows the construction of a scientific FE model.
Given how you have responded to the data I have provided, I see no reason to bother providing you with any more.
Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.
I have made up my mind Mr Moron.
How about you try addressing what I have actually said, rather than propping up pathetic strawmen to try and knock down.
Yet More smelly red herrings
Again, the one providing red herrings here is you.
With your entirely useless attempts at demonstrating Earth is round.
Discussion of models which are wrong, which you still accept as models is quite relevant to the discussion as it exposes your dishonest double standard.
You continually ignoring that and instead just repeatedly dismissing them as red herrings just further demonstrates your dishonesty and desperation.
Please explain what constitutes acceptable requirements. Timmy did answer me a few days ago with, paraphrasing from memory since I'm on my phone, based on scientific data that can make predictions. Not sure what his definition of scientific is though.
Requirement that both sides can agree to, which can be applied to the outdated scientific models which both accept as being models to show that these models meet the requirements.
As opposed to what he has provided before, which are requirements that Timmy only wants to apply to FE models, as at least some models that he accepts as models (like the Bohr model) fail to meet the criteria.