What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

So, no answers, just more of the same.  Got it.

Quote from: Stash on November 30, 2022, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 30, 2022, 01:50:06 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 30, 2022, 01:31:36 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on November 30, 2022, 09:41:28 AM

These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.

I have the same question.

Experiment:
- I go out to the Bonnaville Salt Flats
- I set up some 3 foot high poles 8 miles down the length of the flats away from me and my camera on the smooth surface of the salt
- I know the calculations and the results of earth curvature, drop, for the distance resulting in approx 16 feet hidden
- I look through my camera and record what I can see and not see over the course of several hours.

Is this an experiment that would meet your criteria of "scientific"?

It’s not MY criteria.

The other point is I don’t give a crap what you do or don’t do with your car and camera. Why don’t you ask your pal Capt. Blockhead as he thinks glancing out a window is plenty scientific!

“I know the calculations”

Well good for you!

Based upon your infinite knowledge of scientific criteria, is the experiment "scientific" or not? Just answer the question, don't deflect and get all hyperbolic.

Tell you what.

You take yourself, car and camera off to those flat salt lakes.

Do your thing

Write it up.

Present it here

Then who knows!

Off you go brmmm brmmm

Wow, you sure know how to miss the most obvious of points and deflect accordingly.

So, no answers, just more of the same.  Got it.

What did you honestly expect? This is the semantics thread.

When people have no limitations on words and don't know the meanings of other words, this is the result.

Take the word "data" for example. The definition of data is, "Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."

Facts and statistics. I see no facts in the flat earth wiki, and no statistics for that matter, either. I've seen no flat earth facts. So, forget flat earth scientific data, there isn't even any flat earth data, period. Throwing a number up in the air and calling it a fact or a statistic, does not magically make it a fact or a statistic.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 04:44:09 PM

So what, Stash?

So a scientific model does not need to be correct to be a model. You can have an incorrect model.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 04:44:09 PM

The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.

Just like the aether was "scientifically proven"? A scientific theory doesn't get promoted to something else, and very few people in science refer to things as "scientifically proven", and if they do, it is not in the sense that there is no chance for it to be wrong.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 04:44:09 PM

Oh, and that crappy experiment doesn't follow the five basic steps of the scientific method, so it isn't scientific.

Care to outline what you think the 5 steps are, and highlight the step the experiment is missing?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 06:41:03 PM

The flat Earth idea is straight up science denial.

Importantly, they reject the claims of science, not necessarily the method.
It is more paranoia than science denial.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 06:41:03 PM

So, how can you have a scientific model of a flat earth, which by it's very existence, must exclude any and all science?

Well for starters, the scientific method does not require you to accept that everything discovered by science is true.
It allows you to question and test.
It even allows you to start from scratch.

That means you can ignore the science you don't trust, take some measurements, and make a model.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

Jack, I have never called you “blockhead” no matter how much the shoe may fit. That’s Tiemeup’s pet name for you. Are you picking up what I’m putting down, pet? But do you hear me now accusing you of being dishonest? No, ofcourse not, because I accept it’s just another one of your many oversights.

You may have never called me blockhead and it may have just been Timmy calling me that, but you have certainly called me jockblock, which I don't see as just a playful twist on a name, and instead see as appealing to that same insult.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

You ask, why should a flat earth model have to represent the entire flat earth? Simple. This argument is all about physical shape – curvature versus flat. If a model of Earth isn't representing the entire earth in respect to it's overall shape, what part of the Earth are you suggesting it should represent?

Whatever part you want to represent.
If Earth was infinite, would you want an infinite model?

If you were going to make a model of a Minecraft world, would you do all 64 million blocks wide?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

Why the history lesson? Eratosthenes was relying on Earth curvature and that curvature being consistent across the globe to make his calculations.

And how did he know the curvature was consistent (remember, it isn't)?
How did he know it wasn't a hemisphere?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

Timeisup asks you to produce one piece of scientific flat Earth data a flat Earther can use to create a flat Earth model, every single post, and you can’t do it.

So you wish to cling to the same lies as him?
I provided data for him, and he just ignored it repeatedly.
He was unable to show a fault with it, nor was he able to explain why it couldn't be gathered scientifically?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

I’ve told you I make models, haven’t I? Models of real places, using scale

Yes, simple physical models, as in:
a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.

That is not the only type of model.

Try it with Eratosthenes. You have a sphere, with most of it having no idea what is there.
Why is that any better?
Because you have a specific size?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

As a model maker, I have absolutely nothing to apply scale to, because I have absolutely no data to work with.

So start collecting it.
If you wish to claim a model can't be made, the burden is on you to show it can't be, not just appealing to people not giving you all the data.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM

If you were to narrow your definition of the word “model” and it’s usage, instead of throwing "model" out there like it's you’re cheap whore, you would agree with me.

And in doing so I would disagree with your implication that we have had RE models for thousands of years, and reject so many scientific models as not models.

Jack, what are you doing? Your interpretation is correct and Timeisup's and my interpretations are wrong?

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made. The Earth isn't flat, which explains why there is no flat earth data to collect. Just refamiliarise yourself with the definition of the word, "data", which is facts and statistics. No scientific method went into the flat earth wiki general accepted distances of the sun and moon from earth or the shape and size of flat Earth. They are numbers plucked from the aether or someone's backside. That isn't data.

The azimuthal map of the world is a globe earth projection, with one of the largest continents on Earth, being Antarctica, totally bastardised. For the flat earth it's presented as actual shapes.

You can say flat earthers reject the claims of science but not the scientific method, but I'm yet to see a flat earther employ the scientific method to an experiment.

So, forget flat earth scientific data, there isn't even any flat earth data, period.

Then care to explain why what I have provided doesn't constitute data?

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

You have shown how a highly specific type of FE model can't be made with available data.
And the same would apply for the same kind of RE model, until fairly recently.

You have not shown that you cannot make a FE model.

The Earth isn't flat, which explains why there is no flat earth data to collect.

No, it doesn't, not in the slightest.
Just like the countless scientific models being incorrect did not explain why no one was able to collect data to create those models.

Something being wrong doesn't mean you can't collect data which is consistent with it which can be used to construct a model of it or a model which uses it.

If you wish to claim that is the case, then you need to claim that there is no data to support the Bohr model of the atom, or the Rutherford model, or the Plum Pudding model, or aether, or phlogiston, and so on.

Just refamiliarise yourself with the definition of the word, "data"

You mean like I provided back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90949.msg2380385#msg2380385

That in no way excludes the possibility of FE data.

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

Tell that to the guy who made this flat earth model...

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 01, 2022, 09:33:25 PM

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

Tell that to the guy who made this flat earth model...

Accurately...

Why do people insist on continuing going rounds on whether a model needs to accurately represent reality in order to be considered a model? That is such a weird hang up.

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 01, 2022, 09:33:25 PM

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

Tell that to the guy who made this flat earth model...

I'd tell that to him with pleasure. This guy's flat earth model is nothing more than the azimuthal projection of the globe earth circled with a ring of ice. His idiotic flat earth model owes it's existence to science in the azimuthal projection of the globe. All shapes on that model are a distortion of globe earth reality.

That model is pure fantasy. No flat earth data went into it's creation, but plenty of globe earth data did. It had might as well be a model of Fantasia for all the semblance it has to reality.

No actual "data" points to a flat Earth. It all points to a globe Earth.

Quote from: Stash on December 02, 2022, 01:24:49 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 01, 2022, 09:33:25 PM

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

Tell that to the guy who made this flat earth model...

I'd tell that to him with pleasure. This guy's flat earth model is nothing more than the azimuthal projection of the globe earth circled with a ring of ice. His idiotic flat earth model owes it's existence to science in the azimuthal projection of the globe. All shapes on that model are a distortion of globe earth reality.

True. It's still a model though.

That model is pure fantasy. No flat earth data went into it's creation, but plenty of globe earth data did. It had might as well be a model of Fantasia for all the semblance it has to reality.

No actual "data" points to a flat Earth. It all points to a globe Earth.

Actually, FEer's believe that they do have data. For instance Rowbotham claimed to have calculated with "data" that the Sun is 700 miles above the earth:

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles.

Now we all know this is garbage. But it is believed by some that the data and calculations are sound and have developed models based upon it.

So in short, FEer's have collected data and created models based upon said data. Is it wrong, hell yeah, but FE "data" driven "models" do exist. They just happen to be wildly incorrect.

That model is pure fantasy.

So it is a model in the common sense of the word?
And a model that has Earth as flat?

No actual "data" points to a flat Earth. It all points to a globe Earth.

That all comes down to what you mean by "points to a flat Earth" and "points to a globe Earth".

As has been explained repeatedly, there is a vast quantity of data which cannot tell the difference.

It is compatible with both a RE, with a large enough radius of curvature and a FE.

I would say such data does not point to a round Earth, but that it can be used to construct a FE model, or a RE model of radius larger than a certain amount, with that amount dependant upon the uncertainty of the measurement.

Back from a short trip to an internet free zone. I just wonder if Mr Blockhead has seen the light? Fat chance!

The earth is a bit like a meter stick in that it has fixed unchangeable dimensions and no matter how you care to measure either of them, the result if done accurately and scientifically, will always be the same. What you happen to believe will not change the physical dimensions of an object.

Regardless of the rubbish put forward by Blockhead the motivation of the FE brigade is not science, as they don’t believe in it, have no use for it, as all they care about is their belief.

Jack Blockhead tells the most astonishing lies when he claims:-

Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

To date has given evidence for neither, due to the simple fact none exist, and yet he still pushes this nonsense.

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 03, 2022, 02:26:33 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 02, 2022, 01:24:49 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 01, 2022, 09:33:25 PM

I've already shown how a flat earth model cannot be made.

Tell that to the guy who made this flat earth model...

I'd tell that to him with pleasure. This guy's flat earth model is nothing more than the azimuthal projection of the globe earth circled with a ring of ice. His idiotic flat earth model owes it's existence to science in the azimuthal projection of the globe. All shapes on that model are a distortion of globe earth reality.

True. It's still a model though.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 03, 2022, 02:26:33 AM

That model is pure fantasy. No flat earth data went into it's creation, but plenty of globe earth data did. It had might as well be a model of Fantasia for all the semblance it has to reality.

No actual "data" points to a flat Earth. It all points to a globe Earth.

Actually, FEer's believe that they do have data. For instance Rowbotham claimed to have calculated with "data" that the Sun is 700 miles above the earth:

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles.

Now we all know this is garbage. But it is believed by some that the data and calculations are sound and have developed models based upon it.

So in short, FEer's have collected data and created models based upon said data. Is it wrong, hell yeah, but FE "data" driven "models" do exist. They just happen to be wildly incorrect.

They may be able to calculate a position above a flat plane as to a height for their Flat Earth sun, but that doesn't enable them to construct a flat earth model which is the entire Earth, does it? All they have is a blank canvas in the middle of their lounge room floor with a little ball floating over it, and a line to represent London Bridge to the sea coast at Brighton. Start adding actual real distances of places to that model, and the model will grind to a stop, because you can't put a square peg in a round hole and actual data proves earth is a sphere.

Flat Earthers have created models by manipulating globe earth maps. They haven't used flat earth data to create a model of the entire flat earth, because they can't. All data by the correct definition of the word data, points to a globe Earth. Failed experiments do not result in data.

Flat Earthers think they can have their cake and eat it too. They think they can disregard all of science, but then as evidenced by what they choose for a flat earth map, will happily take the azimuthal projection, add a ring of ice, and say science had nothing to do with it. Or they will perform their own failed experiments, misinterpret the results, and say they arrived at a flat earth proof by employing "their" science. Their science is pseudoscience or failed results.

Flat Earthers can't have their cake and eat it too. if they want to live as though the earth is flat, then they should keep it to themselves and stay in their happy place - their truth. But if they think their reality in their mind can go up against actual physical reality then they need to be shown it cannot.

They also need to be shown that prominent flat earthers are in fact, liars, cheats, and scam artists, as evidenced by their "models".

Back from a short trip to an internet free zone. I just wonder if Mr Blockhead has seen the light? Fat chance!

No, you are clearly just as deluded and cult-like as ever.
Why would you ever see the light?

The earth is a bit like a meter stick

In that it is arbitrarily decided to be the reference such that any change in it is deemed to be changes in everything else?

Regardless of the rubbish put forward by Blockhead

You mean regardless of the rubbish put forward by Moron, it wont magically mean there can't be FE models.

Jack Blockhead tells the most astonishing lies when he claims:-
Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
To date has given evidence for neither, due to the simple fact none exist, and yet he still pushes this nonsense.

And more pathetic projection.
I think you mean Mr Moron (you) tells the most truly pathetic lies, because they can't their delusional BS.
So pathetic, you need to outright reject what has been provided in this thread, and continually set up strawmen to attack; all while failing to even attempt to honestly defend your delusional BS.

Again, can you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model; such that this can then be applied to the models produced by those you worship.

If you think you already have, then deal with the fact that the Bohr doesn't meet the requirements you haven't presented.

They may be able to calculate a position above a flat plane as to a height for their Flat Earth sun, but that doesn't enable them to construct a flat earth model which is the entire Earth, does it? All they have is a blank canvas in the middle of their lounge room floor with a little ball floating over it

Just like the Ancient Greeks weren't able to construct a round Earth model which is the entire Earth as they had a blank ball with a little bit of land and sea drawn in near them, with no idea what was on the other side?

Flat Earthers think they can have their cake and eat it too

That seems to match you far better.
You want to act like REers have had models for thousands of years, even models of the entire Earth; while claiming that in order for FEers to be able to do that, they need to have mapped the entire Earth.
You want the goalposts to be impossible for a FE, but refuse to apply those same goalposts to the RE.

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 02, 2022, 06:49:48 PM

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 02, 2022, 06:49:48 PM

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Back from a short trip to an internet free zone. I just wonder if Mr Blockhead has seen the light? Fat chance!

No, you are clearly just as deluded and cult-like as ever.
Why would you ever see the light?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

The earth is a bit like a meter stick

In that it is arbitrarily decided to be the reference such that any change in it is deemed to be changes in everything else?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Regardless of the rubbish put forward by Blockhead

You mean regardless of the rubbish put forward by Moron, it wont magically mean there can't be FE models.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Jack Blockhead tells the most astonishing lies when he claims:-
Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
To date has given evidence for neither, due to the simple fact none exist, and yet he still pushes this nonsense.

And more pathetic projection.
I think you mean Mr Moron (you) tells the most truly pathetic lies, because they can't their delusional BS.
So pathetic, you need to outright reject what has been provided in this thread, and continually set up strawmen to attack; all while failing to even attempt to honestly defend your delusional BS.

Again, can you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model; such that this can then be applied to the models produced by those you worship.

If you think you already have, then deal with the fact that the Bohr doesn't meet the requirements you haven't presented.

Yup Im in the 'meter stick is a meter' cult along with the other one "a sphere is a sphere is a sphere no matter how you look or measure it cult".

I prefer that to the stupid blockhead cult that you appear to be a member of.

When is a sphere not a sphere?

When measured by Jack Blockhead!

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Back from a short trip to an internet free zone. I just wonder if Mr Blockhead has seen the light? Fat chance!

No, you are clearly just as deluded and cult-like as ever.
Why would you ever see the light?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

The earth is a bit like a meter stick

In that it is arbitrarily decided to be the reference such that any change in it is deemed to be changes in everything else?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Regardless of the rubbish put forward by Blockhead

You mean regardless of the rubbish put forward by Moron, it wont magically mean there can't be FE models.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:00:44 PM

Jack Blockhead tells the most astonishing lies when he claims:-
Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
To date has given evidence for neither, due to the simple fact none exist, and yet he still pushes this nonsense.

And more pathetic projection.
I think you mean Mr Moron (you) tells the most truly pathetic lies, because they can't their delusional BS.
So pathetic, you need to outright reject what has been provided in this thread, and continually set up strawmen to attack; all while failing to even attempt to honestly defend your delusional BS.

Again, can you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model; such that this can then be applied to the models produced by those you worship.

If you think you already have, then deal with the fact that the Bohr doesn't meet the requirements you haven't presented.

Never mind the Nobel winning Bohr what about the looser Blockhead who keeps telling squadrons of lies about claiming to have Plenty while showing none!

Are these mot your words?

And notice how you don't respond to them in an honest, rational manner?
Instead you just jump straight to the ISS?

Yup Im in the 'meter stick is a meter' cult

It's great how you say this, entirely ignoring that a meter stick isn't actually 1 m long.
Instead, it's length varies with multiple factors.
But it does sum up your kind of attitude.
This must be right, and anything that says otherwise is heresy.

When is a sphere not a sphere?

Yet again you go for the pathetic dichotomy, pretending that anyone who object to your delusional cult must think Earth is flat.
And yet again, you fail to realise that the same delusional BS can be applied to those you worship.
When is something which can only be fully described by quantum mechanics, with wavefunctions for electrons without these existing in specific positions, ever be a simple classical system of electrons orbiting a nucleus at a fixed distance?

Never mind the Nobel winning Bohr

No, lets mind him and his model.
See how his model fails the standard you are trying to apply to the FE to pretend there can't be FE models.
Lets mind the fact that your standard goes directly against the work of this Nobel prize winner, and would declare there work to not be models.

I know you hate doing that as you can't stand to have your idols challenged, especially not by your own delusional BS.

keeps telling squadrons of lies about claiming to have Plenty while showing none!

Yet again, it is you (loser Moron) who keeps telling lies.
I have provided the data, I have explained how such data can be collected in a scientific manner.

Your only responses so far have been to entirely ignore it, repeatedly lie that it hasn't been provided, and spout pure BS that in science there is no uncertainty in measurement.

You are yet to even attempt to actually challenge the data presented.

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 05, 2022, 03:26:22 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 02, 2022, 06:49:48 PM

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?

I'm not disowning anything you absolute waste of oxygen.  I said, you have no reading comprehension.  You just proved it.  You scanned through saw a trigger word, plenty, and went to town constructing a strawman.
Now, be an adult and properly respond or not at all. 

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:17:40 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 05, 2022, 03:26:22 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 02, 2022, 06:49:48 PM

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?

I'm not disowning anything you absolute waste of oxygen.  I said, you have no reading comprehension.  You just proved it.  You scanned through saw a trigger word, plenty, and went to town constructing a strawman.
Now, be an adult and properly respond or not at all.

Well if your not disowning them how about backing them up rather than getting those tight little panties of yours in a right little twist!

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:17:40 AM

Are these mot your words?

And notice how you don't respond to them in an honest, rational manner?
Instead you just jump straight to the ISS?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:20:31 AM

Yup Im in the 'meter stick is a meter' cult

It's great how you say this, entirely ignoring that a meter stick isn't actually 1 m long.
Instead, it's length varies with multiple factors.
But it does sum up your kind of attitude.
This must be right, and anything that says otherwise is heresy.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:20:31 AM

When is a sphere not a sphere?

Yet again you go for the pathetic dichotomy, pretending that anyone who object to your delusional cult must think Earth is flat.
And yet again, you fail to realise that the same delusional BS can be applied to those you worship.
When is something which can only be fully described by quantum mechanics, with wavefunctions for electrons without these existing in specific positions, ever be a simple classical system of electrons orbiting a nucleus at a fixed distance?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:22:48 AM

Never mind the Nobel winning Bohr

No, lets mind him and his model.
See how his model fails the standard you are trying to apply to the FE to pretend there can't be FE models.
Lets mind the fact that your standard goes directly against the work of this Nobel prize winner, and would declare there work to not be models.

I know you hate doing that as you can't stand to have your idols challenged, especially not by your own delusional BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:22:48 AM

keeps telling squadrons of lies about claiming to have Plenty while showing none!

Yet again, it is you (loser Moron) who keeps telling lies.
I have provided the data, I have explained how such data can be collected in a scientific manner.

Your only responses so far have been to entirely ignore it, repeatedly lie that it hasn't been provided, and spout pure BS that in science there is no uncertainty in measurement.

You are yet to even attempt to actually challenge the data presented.

A meter stick is not a meter! Well I suppose in your fictional world it can be any length you decide it to be ! In the linear measuring world a rule, tape or ‘stick’ is named according to its length between its zero point and the last graduation which in the case of a meter stick is a meter. Normally for convenience an extra bit especially in the case of the steel version is added with a punched hole so it can be hung up! 
How pedantic can one get I suppose in your bizarro blockhead world a sphere can like a meter stick be any thing you fancy, including flat!..,, with plenty real data to convince yourself that you are always right.

Jack Blockhead leader if the “I’m always right and I’ve got plenty” cult .
Though in your case the plenty happens to be plenty of BS.

You really have got the distracted hots for Bohr. How about you forget that and focus on backing up what I consider to be the most blatant of your big fat lies:-

Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Come on Blockhead give with some “plenty” examples!

And you have the barefaced lying cheek to say this:-

“have provided the data, I have explained how such data can be collected in a scientific manner.”

What a lying Blockhead you are as you’ve done no such thing.

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 05, 2022, 12:42:00 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 05, 2022, 10:17:40 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 05, 2022, 03:26:22 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 04, 2022, 11:10:57 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on December 02, 2022, 06:49:48 PM

Because...  they would have to accept that Jack is correct.  Still in a petty way, but actually correct about models, not all data 100% only points to spherical Earth.  There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun.  If you ignore other data, then there is some that could be used as a basis for a model.  It falls apart when trying to do multiple predictions from differing systems, i.e. sun movement and weather patterns.  But still a representation built from "chosen" data.  Key word there, chosen. 
But you know, it's fun to make asses out of ourselves just to avoid admitting being wrong.

So your doing the ‘PLENTY’ illusion now!

If you too have ‘PLENTY’ how about you reveal it rather than playing the pretence game!

Eratosthenes! It’s 2022 have you not noticed! Satellites orbit the earth along with people gazing upon it from the ISS!

It’s an inescapable fact it’s a sphere, hence any scientifically conducted  measurements will show exactly that.

There is no way any scientifically conducted experiment could give a result other than what the earth happens to be, a sphere.

If you dont agree how about you present some evidence rather than even more hollow pointless statements!

Do you have any reading comprehension at all?  Or do you just scan through to pick specific words to use to set up your strawman arguments?
Respond properly to what I said.

Are these mot your words?

 "There is plenty that could be used to support either, like personal observations from the ground, etc.  Even Eratosthenes' data could be interpreted as a close sun."

Im not surprised you want to disown them given just how inane they are. I understand you don't want to stand by them. After all how could you?

I'm not disowning anything you absolute waste of oxygen.  I said, you have no reading comprehension.  You just proved it.  You scanned through saw a trigger word, plenty, and went to town constructing a strawman.
Now, be an adult and properly respond or not at all.

Well if your not disowning them how about backing them up rather than get those tight little panties of yours in a right little twist!

Backing up what dumbass?  Do you not understand words and sentences?  Personal  observations from the ground.  I.e. what you can see from... the ground.  It's pretty much impossible to tell the difference with your eyes, but they are observations, therefore data.
As I said, and stop with the childish strawman of trying to say I believe in FE, that if you ignore all the data that specifically supports that the Earth is sphere then you can make a model.  A very inaccurate model, but a model.  Like the example jack used of the model of an atom ignoring scale, representing an electron as a ball, and a few other things but still a model.  Not 100% accurate, not all encompassing, a representation.  That atom model cannot be used to really make predictions, and neither can a FE model.  Still a model. 
But you my mentally challenged dancing fool, can't agree with any of that or you will seem to agree with Jack, your poor psyche could handle that.
Which is why I asked for your definition of a model... YOUR DEFINITION.  The one you are using to say there can be no FE models.  Also YOUR definition of scientific data, what you are using to say all FE claims can not be scientific. 
But you won't do that will you idiot.  You will just dance around more for me like the absolute fool you are.  I enthusiastically await further absolute destruction of all your illogical cult like ravings, again. 

A meter stick is not a meter! Well I suppose in your fictional world it can be any length you decide it to be

You really do love digging yourself deeper and deeper don't you?
So say you get two so call meter sticks. You have them at the same temperature and see they are the same length, to within uncertainty.

Then, you place one of these in liquid nitrogen, and place the other in an oven, and then compare them again.
You notice the one placed in liquid nitrogen is significantly shorted than the one placed in the oven.
So which is 1 m?

According to your delusional cult, they are both 1 m, and anyone who claims otherwise is a heretic.

According to REALITY, and the SI definition of units, the length of 1 m is defined based upon the speed of light in a vacuum, not some arbitrary stick. That is how it was done in the past, but that has serious issues. Such as 2 such prototypes not agreeing with each other, and things like thermal expansion, and relativity causing issues.
Yes, switching to the speed of light does raise the question of if that is truly constant and if it isn't how it would be measured, but that is also going into philosophy rather than just science.

But thanks for once again showing you don't understand science, and instead just want to treat it like a cult.

And of course, you result to blatantly lying about those who don't agree with your delusional BS.
Where just because I object to your delusional that a meter stick must always be 1 m, you lie by claiming I think it can be any length I decide it to be.

Why can't you be honest for once in your life?
Why can't you honestly respond to what has ben said, rather than immediately jumping to pathetic strawmen?
Is it because your cult wont allow it, and your cult mindset demands that anyone who doesn't fully agree with you must disagree with everything?

Jack Blockhead leader if the “I’m always right and I’ve got plenty” cult .

Timmy the Moron, the leader of the "MY CULT ISN"T A CULT, ITS SCIENCE AND YOUR A DUMB DUMB IF YOU DON'T AGREE" cult.

You really have got the distracted hots for Bohr. How about you forget that and focus on backing up what I consider to be the most blatant of your big fat lies:

No, I don't have the hots for Bohr. I just recognise that Bohr shows your claims to be pure BS.
Why would I just forget it when it so easily demonstrates your claims are BS?

The standard you wish to apply to FE models will result in the Bohr model of the atom failing as well.
Why don't you stop fleeing from this, and see if the delusional BS you are spouting works with the models of the idols you worship?

If your position was honest, rational and consistent, you wouldn't have any need to fear this test.
But because you rely upon an incredibly dishonest double standard, were anything from the FE must be rejected at all costs, while anything from your idols must be accepted without thinking; you refuse.

As for lies, again, you are yet to demonstrate any of my lies.
Instead you just continually repeat the same dishonest BS.

I have provided the data, I have explained how it can be obtained in a scientific manner.
You choosing to ignore that just further highlights your dishonesty.

So how about you stop with the pathetic lies and strawmen and instead start trying to justify your delusional BS.

Start by providing a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be a model.
Once you have done this, it will be applied to the models produced by those you worship.
If these models fail, you will either need to claim that they are not really models and instead are fictional fantasies, or you will need to accept that your requirements are wrong and produce a new set which will again be applied to the models of those you worship.

Only once the things you claim to be models can pass the set of requirements you provide is there any point in applying it to the FE.

So come on Moron, give us a set of requirements and defend the products of your idols.

“have provided the data, I have explained how such data can be collected in a scientific manner.”
What a lying Blockhead you are as you’ve done no such thing.

What a lying moron, as you need to continually reject what is so trivial to see has been provided.
The plenty was provided when you first demanded it:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90949.msg2377519#msg2377519
And then you continually pretended it wasn't, because your pathetic cult can't handle reality.
When you are that desperate to reject to reality to cling to your delusional BS it shows a very serious problem with you.

Now stop with the dishonest BS and provide the set of requirements.

Well, Timeisup, looks like you and I are well and truly beaten in this debate, huh? Jackblack and Mickey T are too smart for you and I. They sure showed us! Guess it's time to throw in the towel..... 

But before we do, I'm sure JackBlack or Mikey T would be only too willing to show us pair of "morons" the flat Earth model that can be created from all that flat earth data......

Just a couple of photos of your finished flat earth model relying solely on flat earth data should do the trick, boys! Like I said, your only mandatory requirement is your flat earth model must be of the entire Earth, oh and I think we can all agree this goes without saying, that all country shapes and continent shapes and distances between continents must be true to scale.

I'm not asking for much! Just the bare minimum!

You both say a flat earth model can be made soley from flat earth data, so time to put your money where your big mouths are! Go for it! Looking forward to seeing what you pair of geniuses come up with!

Like I said, your only mandatory requirement is your flat earth model must be of the entire Earth, oh and I think we can all agree this goes without saying, that all country shapes and continent shapes and distances between continents must be true to scale.

Again, WHY?
You don't demand that the RE models of the ancient Greeks showed all the continents with the correct shapes and distances between them.
So why apply that standard to FE models?

Plenty of models are not true to scale (including the models of the atom you provided earlier).
Plenty of models are incomplete.

Why demand such standards for FE models when so many models don't meet them?

I'm not asking for much! Just the bare minimum!

You are asking for far beyond the bare minimum.
The bare minimum is to demonstrate that the claim that there can be no FE model is unsupported.

Well, Timeisup, looks like you and I are well and truly beaten in this debate, huh? Jackblack and Mickey T are too smart for you and I. They sure showed us! Guess it's time to throw in the towel..... 

But before we do, I'm sure JackBlack or Mikey T would be only too willing to show us pair of "morons" the flat Earth model that can be created from all that flat earth data......

Just a couple of photos of your finished flat earth model relying solely on flat earth data should do the trick, boys! Like I said, your only mandatory requirement is your flat earth model must be of the entire Earth, oh and I think we can all agree this goes without saying, that all country shapes and continent shapes and distances between continents must be true to scale.

I'm not asking for much! Just the bare minimum!

You both say a flat earth model can be made soley from flat earth data, so time to put your money where your big mouths are! Go for it! Looking forward to seeing what you pair of geniuses come up with!

I see you are trying the same strawman tactics as Timmy. 
When have I said I would build a FE model?  Where have I said it should even exist? 
 So I guess you are saying a model has to be 100 percent accurate now.  if so, show me a model that takes every single aspect of everything into account.  Better yet show me an accurate, 100 percent, globe Earth model.  You want every aspect to be there or it's not a model.  Go ahead smart guy, show me something that I can't point out a single aspect as not accounted for or exaggerated, or incorrect.  You can't, it doesn't exist.  That doesn't mean the Earth is flat.  That means you dont have a clue as to what you are talking about.  You don't understand what a model is beyond your to scale creations, that isn't the only type. If you can't provide this, you lose, if it doesnt have to be 100 percent accurate, you lose.
This is the trap you idiots set for yourself.  Give a FE supporter any reason to discredit you or RE, and they will take it.  You're making impossible standards for them that can be turned onto you. 
You'll try, you'll scream and cry, show me a computerized globe, but I will easily find a fault.  And you definately will continue to lose this argument.
I get it, Jack pissed you off.  He pisses me off sometimes, get over it.  Stop playing this childish game.  For damn sure do not strawman my points again.  When you learn to make logical points that support your arguments without misrepresenting me, then  come back and try again.