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

you haven't realised I am referring to physical models whilst you and MykoiT are referring to conceptual models?

No moron, I have realised that you want to focus on physical models, as you appear to be too intellectually challenged to be capable of considering any other kind of model.
But even then, there is no requirement for it to be accurate.

Why don't you look at the basic requirement for a physical model which includes similar geometry and scale.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Given the fact that there are things specifically referred to as SCALE models, that strongly indicates a physical model does not need to be to scale.
Likewise, the existence of physical solar system models, which also aren't too scale shows quite conclusively that they don't need to be to scale.

So no, a scale is not a basic requirement for a physical model.
You would have to be a pretty big moron to think that all physical models must be to scale (or have a scale as a basic requirement). Especially after you presented physical models which were not to scale.

We can also look at these solar system models and see plenty have Earth as a non-descript ball or circle, without showing any of the continents, and a similar thing is true for the other rocky planets.
Most entirely leave out the asteroid belt and dwarf planets, and the trojan asteroids and so on.

So it is quite clear that it doesn't even need to be complete.

So the "basic geometry" part that is required would be that it is flat, or has a roughly flat surface.

So with those requirements it is certainly possible to make a FE model.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 12:33:38 AM

With this so called debate long descended  into a pantomime with the truth being the victim of the evil villain it’s worthwhile establishing a few truths.

And you clearly aren't the person to do it.
So lets establish some.
There is no requirement for a model to be perfect or 100% correct.
There is no requirement for it to be 100% accurate or even too scale.
Something being false does not preclude the existence of a model for it, or it being a part of a model.
Likewise, something being false does not preclude the possibility of data existing which is consistent with it which can be gathered in a scientific manner and be used to make a scientific manner.

With this, it is quite clear that it is possible for FE models to exist.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 12:33:38 AM

will claim
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Without offering any evidence to back it up.

I already have, repeatedly.
You know I have.
You just can't handle it so you deflect.

Just look at how you changed tunes between your previous posts.
When I linked to the wrong post, you happily quoted the entire post.
But now, after I corrected the link, you don't post it, because you know it contains the data and shows you are wrong.

You really do love showing everyone just how pathetic and dishonest your position is, and how you are wiling to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend your delusional cult is correct.

It is truly pathetic.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 12:33:38 AM

Just as there is no scientific experiment that could ever be done that would prove a melon to be flat

Just like Bohr never did an experiment to prove that electrons were orbiting an atom at a fixed radius.

And with this you just further show your complete lack of understanding of science.
Science doesn't perform experiments to prove things.
Instead, it performs experiments to gain data and test models, but because it relies upon inductive reasoning, it can NEVER prove a model is correct. The best it could do is prove one is wrong.

Yet again, you let your irrational hatred of the FE allow you to spout delusional BS which would work equally well against the products of your idols.
You would have to be a really big moron to do something so stupid.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 12:33:38 AM

there is no scientific experiment that could ever be done to show the earth is flat. Despite what Blockead says it’s just not possible

And more dishonest BS from you. Stop lying moron.
Where have I ever suggested it is possible to do an experiment that shows the Earth is flat?
Saying there is data which is consistent with a FE which would allow one to construct a FE model is quite different to data which shows that Earth is flat.

And again, the same can be said for the failed models of your idols.
There is no scientific experiment that could be done to show that electrons orbit an atomic nucleus at a fixed radius.
There is no scientific experiment that could be done to show that an atom is a large solid region of positive charge with tiny little negative charges distributed throughout this bulk positive charge.

Yet again, you are making statements which do not support your delusional BS at all.
You are making statements which work equally well against the models of your idols.

Again, it is truly pathetic just how low you need to stoop to pretend your delusional BS is correct.
Your cult is pathetic, just like you.

Now stop with all the dishonest BS, stop with the lies, stop with the strawmen, stop with the deflections.

Either provide a coherent consistent set of requirements for what makes a model, or admit that you can't demonstrate that there can be no FE models unless you are willing to exclude all the outdated, refuted scientific models.

No one has mentioned perfect or 100% accurate we are talking “scientific:

Let remember once more what YOU said never mind moving the goalposts. YOU said:-

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

Being wrong does not matter  one jot Ive already made that clear. Not all scientific models can be right. How can they? What they have to be is scientific!. The word you keep avoiding and shying away from is SCIENTIFIC! The very word you used to describe both the alleged data and the alleged models. Don’t avoid  addressing what YOU claimed.

You now say:-

“ikewise, something being false does not preclude the possibility of data existing which is consistent with it which can be gathered in a scientific manner and be used to make a scientific manner.”

There is a huge difference going into a study where the answer is known and firmly established and the answer is an unknown or grey area. The shape of the earth like that of a melon is known there is no dispute its not a grey area, which automatically rules out any scientific study that sets out to disprove an already established truth, especially when the alternative notion is based on a fictional belief wrapped in a conspiracy. AS I have kept saying to you, there is no science in any flat earth notion or belief. NONE.

If you disagree then present examples of this alleged “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA”

Present examples of your “alleged Flat Earth Science”

Nothing to do with FE belief is scientific. At best it could be described as pseudoscientific but NEVER EVER scientific as there is NO scientific pretext for for anything they believe.

If YOU disagree then present some? Fat chance!

You even keep saying this:-

“I already have, repeatedly.
You know I have.
You just can't handle it so you deflect.”

Where has it been published. Who did the study and what were the details and methodology around its collection and where is the description of this alleged model?

If you think gazing out a window or a casual glance at the horizon equates to a scientific study then you are even more stupid than I already think you are.

You shy away from ever answering these questions as NO answer actually exists. There is no alleged flat earth scientific models nor alleged flat earth scientific data , had there been you would have presented it. The FACT you have NOT proves you to be a bare faced liar.

BOHR is irrelevant and just a distraction. SHOW YOUR PROOF!

You then make a stupid claim like this:-

“There is no scientific experiment that could be done to show that electrons orbit an atomic nucleus at a fixed radius.”

What proof have YOU got for this? What gives YOU the scientific credentials to make such a statement? What facilities do YOU have to prove this? Like all your claims they are pure fictional rubbish. Pure irrelevant deflection! A pathetic attempt at a smoke screen.

When it comes to dishonesty and lies ou are with up there Mr Blockhead.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 09, 2022, 12:40:42 AM

you haven't realised I am referring to physical models whilst you and MykoiT are referring to conceptual models?

No moron, I have realised that you want to focus on physical models, as you appear to be too intellectually challenged to be capable of considering any other kind of model.
But even then, there is no requirement for it to be accurate.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 09, 2022, 12:40:42 AM

Why don't you look at the basic requirement for a physical model which includes similar geometry and scale.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Given the fact that there are things specifically referred to as SCALE models, that strongly indicates a physical model does not need to be to scale.
Likewise, the existence of physical solar system models, which also aren't too scale shows quite conclusively that they don't need to be to scale.

So no, a scale is not a basic requirement for a physical model.
You would have to be a pretty big moron to think that all physical models must be to scale (or have a scale as a basic requirement). Especially after you presented physical models which were not to scale.

We can also look at these solar system models and see plenty have Earth as a non-descript ball or circle, without showing any of the continents, and a similar thing is true for the other rocky planets.
Most entirely leave out the asteroid belt and dwarf planets, and the trojan asteroids and so on.

So it is quite clear that it doesn't even need to be complete.

So the "basic geometry" part that is required would be that it is flat, or has a roughly flat surface.

So with those requirements it is certainly possible to make a FE model.

For a physical model to be 'scientific' it has to be based on scientific data/ information. FE has NO scientific data so are unable to construct even physical scientific models.

How do you suggest they construct a scientific physical model of the earth? Where do you suggest they obtain the required information to help construct a model that, for example ,shows the relative position of the continents?How could they do that?

There is no where they can obtain any hard information  as NONE EXISTS, so their only option is to just  'make it up" Much like Tolkien did in creating his map of the fictional Middle Earth where no scientific data was used. Any Flat Earth physical model would have the very same basis for its creation, pure 100% fiction and 0% science.

THERE CAN BE NO FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC MODELS, PHYSICAL OR CONCEPTUAL. The reason being they have NO science on which to base any.

For a physical model to be 'scientific'

Do you even bother reading the post you respond to?
Smokey has made it clear that they are not talking about scientific models.

FE has NO scientific data so are unable to construct even physical scientific models.

Prove it.

help construct a model that, for example ,shows the relative position of the continents?

Or how about you read what I said where I clearly pointed out how such a thing isn't required?

There is no where they can obtain any hard information  as NONE EXISTS

Again, that is your baseless claim.

No one has mentioned perfect or 100% accurate

But that is basically what you are appealing to.

Let remember once more what YOU said never mind moving the goalposts.

And I have backed up what I said, with you just fleeing from it, being unable to refute it.
Again, this is demonstrated best with the comparison of your replies to my comments with links.
When the link was to the wrong post, you happily quoted it in full, so you could try to mock with glee that there was none there.
But then, when the correct link was provided, you ignored it, entirely, demonstrating just how dishonest you are and how pathetic your position is.


So, why don't we try this with you?
You said:
"It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model."

This is effectively saying that because Earth isn't flat, there can't be a FE model.
Well the same applies to the idols you worship.
Just like there is no way for an atom to be a large solid object, which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a plum pudding model of the atom.
Just like there is no way for electrons to act as particles in the classical sense when bound to an atom, which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of the Rutherford or Bohr model of the atom.
Just like there is no way for an atom to be the smallest building block of matter, precluding any such hypothesis or model with that.

You are yet to provide anything to show why there can't be FE models which wouldn't also exclude plenty of things you count as models, which you refuse to entertain the idea of them not being models.

Being wrong does not matter  one jot Ive already made that clear.

So you admit your claim above is pure BS?
That you were wrong?
That Earth not being flat, and no way for Earth to ever be flat in this particular universe in no way precludes the possibility of a FE model?

There is a huge difference going into a study where the answer is known and firmly established and the answer is an unknown or grey area.

Ultimately, no, there isn't.
Ultimately, the same possibilities exist for gathering data.
It doesn't matter if someone else has gathered data before you or not.
Someone gathering data which shows you are wrong in no way impacts your ability to gather data and produce a model which is consistent with the data you collected.

Again, if you wish to disagree, then you need to reject the Bohr belief of the atom as not a model as there was data that existed before the model was made which demonstrates the model is wrong.

The shape of the earth like that of a melon is known there is no dispute

Again, that is religion, not science.
If you want to follow the scientific method, nothing is above dispute.

AS I have kept saying to you, there is no science in any flat earth notion or belief.

The problem is you just keep saying it, trying to follow circular reasoning to use your baseless claims to prop up your other baseless claims.
You are yet to demonstrate it.

If YOU disagree then present some?

I already have.
Every time you repeat this pathetic dishonest demand of yours you are just showing how dishonest you are and how pathetic your cult is.

BOHR is irrelevant and just a distraction.

As I have explained before, Bohr is extremely relevant as it highlights your incredible dishonest double standard.
It shows that your claim has no integrity or sense at all, and that it is just an irrational religious attack against something your cult deems to be heresy.
Bohr's model of the atoms fails the standard you try to set for a FE, yet you refuse to label that as a fictional fantasy based upon a conspiracy or anything like that.
Instead you want to flee from it every time it is brought up, as if you know it exposes your dishonest BS.

What proof have YOU got for this?

What proof do you have for any of the wild claims you make? NONE!

Like all your claims they are pure fictional rubbish. Pure irrelevant deflection! A pathetic attempt at a smoke screen.

You sure do love projection.
The statement is equivalent to your statement regarding the FE.
Just like there is plenty of evidence showing Earth is roughly a sphere, there is plenty of evidence showing that the only way to describe an atom fully is through quantum mechanics, and that electrons do not orbit in a fixed radius.
But because it shows that your standard would mean plenty of things you accept as models couldn't be considered models, you deflect, with this BS.
Your response is a pure irrelevant deflection! A pathetic attempt at a smoke screen.

All to avoid the inescapable fact. Any standard for a model will either accept the possibility of FE models, or they will reject so many scientific models, including the Bohr model of the atom.
You hate this fact, so do whatever you can to avoid it.

When it comes to dishonesty and lies you are way up there Mr Moron.

Now again, stop with all the dishonest BS.
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model.
Once you have done this, it will be applied to the models of the idols you worship, for you to either accept that they are not a model, or demonstrate that they do not fail your set of criteria. (Note: if you think you have already provided the requirements, then you need to show how the Bohr doesn't fail them as it fails everything you have provided so far).
Only after you have produced a set of requirements with you either agreeing that they mean the Bohr model is not a scientific model, or the models of your idols passing do we move on to applying this set of standards to the FE.

Of course, I know you will never do this simple task as it would mean that you either need to reject the models of your idols, or accept that there can be FE models. And either way would be heresy for your cult.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:23:58 AM

For a physical model to be 'scientific'

Do you even bother reading the post you respond to?
Smokey has made it clear that they are not talking about scientific models.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:23:58 AM

FE has NO scientific data so are unable to construct even physical scientific models.

Prove it.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:23:58 AM

help construct a model that, for example ,shows the relative position of the continents?

Or how about you read what I said where I clearly pointed out how such a thing isn't required?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:23:58 AM

There is no where they can obtain any hard information  as NONE EXISTS

Again, that is your baseless claim.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

No one has mentioned perfect or 100% accurate

But that is basically what you are appealing to.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

Let remember once more what YOU said never mind moving the goalposts.

And I have backed up what I said, with you just fleeing from it, being unable to refute it.
Again, this is demonstrated best with the comparison of your replies to my comments with links.
When the link was to the wrong post, you happily quoted it in full, so you could try to mock with glee that there was none there.
But then, when the correct link was provided, you ignored it, entirely, demonstrating just how dishonest you are and how pathetic your position is.


So, why don't we try this with you?
You said:
"It’s not just that the earth isn’t flat there is no way it could ever be flat in this particular universe we find ourselves in which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a flat earth hypothesis or model."

This is effectively saying that because Earth isn't flat, there can't be a FE model.
Well the same applies to the idols you worship.
Just like there is no way for an atom to be a large solid object, which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of a plum pudding model of the atom.
Just like there is no way for electrons to act as particles in the classical sense when bound to an atom, which in turn precludes there ever being the possibility of the Rutherford or Bohr model of the atom.
Just like there is no way for an atom to be the smallest building block of matter, precluding any such hypothesis or model with that.

You are yet to provide anything to show why there can't be FE models which wouldn't also exclude plenty of things you count as models, which you refuse to entertain the idea of them not being models.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

Being wrong does not matter  one jot Ive already made that clear.

So you admit your claim above is pure BS?
That you were wrong?
That Earth not being flat, and no way for Earth to ever be flat in this particular universe in no way precludes the possibility of a FE model?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

There is a huge difference going into a study where the answer is known and firmly established and the answer is an unknown or grey area.

Ultimately, no, there isn't.
Ultimately, the same possibilities exist for gathering data.
It doesn't matter if someone else has gathered data before you or not.
Someone gathering data which shows you are wrong in no way impacts your ability to gather data and produce a model which is consistent with the data you collected.

Again, if you wish to disagree, then you need to reject the Bohr belief of the atom as not a model as there was data that existed before the model was made which demonstrates the model is wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

The shape of the earth like that of a melon is known there is no dispute

Again, that is religion, not science.
If you want to follow the scientific method, nothing is above dispute.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

AS I have kept saying to you, there is no science in any flat earth notion or belief.

The problem is you just keep saying it, trying to follow circular reasoning to use your baseless claims to prop up your other baseless claims.
You are yet to demonstrate it.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

If YOU disagree then present some?

I already have.
Every time you repeat this pathetic dishonest demand of yours you are just showing how dishonest you are and how pathetic your cult is.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

BOHR is irrelevant and just a distraction.

As I have explained before, Bohr is extremely relevant as it highlights your incredible dishonest double standard.
It shows that your claim has no integrity or sense at all, and that it is just an irrational religious attack against something your cult deems to be heresy.
Bohr's model of the atoms fails the standard you try to set for a FE, yet you refuse to label that as a fictional fantasy based upon a conspiracy or anything like that.
Instead you want to flee from it every time it is brought up, as if you know it exposes your dishonest BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

What proof have YOU got for this?

What proof do you have for any of the wild claims you make? NONE!

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 03:11:49 AM

Like all your claims they are pure fictional rubbish. Pure irrelevant deflection! A pathetic attempt at a smoke screen.

You sure do love projection.
The statement is equivalent to your statement regarding the FE.
Just like there is plenty of evidence showing Earth is roughly a sphere, there is plenty of evidence showing that the only way to describe an atom fully is through quantum mechanics, and that electrons do not orbit in a fixed radius.
But because it shows that your standard would mean plenty of things you accept as models couldn't be considered models, you deflect, with this BS.
Your response is a pure irrelevant deflection! A pathetic attempt at a smoke screen.

All to avoid the inescapable fact. Any standard for a model will either accept the possibility of FE models, or they will reject so many scientific models, including the Bohr model of the atom.
You hate this fact, so do whatever you can to avoid it.

When it comes to dishonesty and lies you are way up there Mr Moron.

Now again, stop with all the dishonest BS.
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model.
Once you have done this, it will be applied to the models of the idols you worship, for you to either accept that they are not a model, or demonstrate that they do not fail your set of criteria. (Note: if you think you have already provided the requirements, then you need to show how the Bohr doesn't fail them as it fails everything you have provided so far).
Only after you have produced a set of requirements with you either agreeing that they mean the Bohr model is not a scientific model, or the models of your idols passing do we move on to applying this set of standards to the FE.

Of course, I know you will never do this simple task as it would mean that you either need to reject the models of your idols, or accept that there can be FE models. And either way would be heresy for your cult.

Pay attention. Smokey can talk about whatever he likes. I’m talking about the impossibility of alleged FE scientific models.
Models you say exist!

I’ve just pointed out the impossibility of creating a physical FE scientific model just like I pointed out the impossibility of a conceptual one.

The question for each is the same and one you refuse to answer.

Where do they get their alleged scientific data from?

Who was it who collected the data?

How did they collect it ?

And where are these alleged models to be found?

None of these questions have you answered!

The requirements for what constitutes a scientific model is out there if you care to look it up. Why ask me?

Are you too stupid to look it up for yourself Blockhead?

So how are you going to construct your flat earth scientific model?

You could talk us through all the steps!

Firstly the use by Jack Blockhead of  the situation during the early 1900s in regards to work on the atom in no way compares to anything to do with the flat earth.

In the 1900s the structure of the atom was largely unknown and scientists through experimentation were trying to discover what was going on.

That is an indisputable fact that can easily be verified, though Blockhead will no doubt try to rewrite history along with everything else to suit his own ends.

It’s use was no more than a smokescreen. If anyone wanted to find out about the work of Bohr it could be looked up. Very different from trying to find out about the alleged REAL FE DATA AND REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC  MODELS! Try looking thdm up! Attempt to find out who produced these non existent models and the data they used…… good luck because despite what Jack Blockhead says they don’t exist. They are no more than a figment of his imagination.

Not only is it an impossibility for them to exist it is also true to say none actually exist.

The situation in 2022 in regard to the form of the earth is NOT unknown. There is no scientific debate, there is no grey area. The form of the earth was measured over 2000 years ago.
It’s dimensions and continents have been measured and mapped and the exact locations of all its major and minor features are known and have been established down to the multimeter level.

The earth is and had never been flat there is no debate.

Jack Blockhead imagines a physical model of the flat earth could be made. I would like him to explain how this could be done!

Jack Blockhead thinks some conceptual model to do with some aspect of flat earth belief has been produced though he had never ever presented it. Not once! He says it exists but never ever has he revealed it and the data that was used.

In reality there is no FE scientific models, physical, conceptual or otherwise.

Jack Blockhead will lie, squirm and put up smokescreens, go off on tangents, anything to avoid dealing with that burning question.

WHERE ARE THESE ALLEGED FE SCIDNTIFIC MODELS? WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO PRODUCED THEM AND UNDER WHAT CURCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY PFODUCED?….. AND OF COURSE EHAT DO THEY ATTEMPT TO PROVE?

My prediction is Jack Blockhead will avoid answering any of those questions. He will lie and state he already has.

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

Pay attention.

Follow your own advice and pay attention to what I have said, and try responding to that.
For example, pay attention to who I was replying to.
You quoted my comment which was a response to smokey.

I’ve just pointed out the impossibility of creating a physical FE scientific model just like I pointed out the impossibility of a conceptual one.

You have ASSERTED it, without justification.

Again, where is your set of requirements that something needs to meet in order to be a scientific model?

Firstly the use by Jack Blockhead of  the situation during the early 1900s in regards to work on the atom in no way compares to anything to do with the flat earth.

When we consider the statements made by Timmy the moron, it certainly does compare.
The work of Bohr suffers from the same issues you are putting forward regarding the FE model.
At the time of Bohr, it was known that the Bohr model could only work for hydrogen, that it could not work for any other atom.
This means only some data can be used to support it, and plenty of other data would show it is wrong.

The requirements you attempt to put forward for a scientific model would exclude the model from Bohr.

So it is very much comparable and relevant.

But you wish to flee from this, because you know you cannot provide any set of requirements which exclude FE models, without excluding plenty of other models like the Bohr model.

Not only is it an impossibility for them to exist

You sure do love repeatedly asserting pure BS don't you?
Try actually demonstrating that it is impossible rather than repeatedly asserting it.

The earth is and had never been flat there is no debate.

The electrons in atoms have never been confined to discrete orbitals a fixed distance from the nucleus.

Jack Blockhead imagines a physical model of the flat earth could be made.

Timmy the moron things a FE model is an impossibility.
I would like him to explain why he thinks this.

Jack Blockhead will lie, squirm and put up smokescreens, go off on tangents, anything to avoid dealing with that burning question.

Timmy Moron will lie, squirm and put up smokescreens, go off on tangents, anything to avoid dealing with that burning question:
What is the coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, a set of requirements which the Bohr model of the atom passes?

My prediction is Timmy Moron will avoid answering any of those questions. He will lie and deflect and use whatever other dishonest BS he can think of, because he could never accept this heresy.

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Well put.

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

A round of applause. You looked it up. Well done.

Now go read it and take it on board and learn something, especially from these words that you presented:-

"Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations."

Show one thing from any FE notion that conforms to that!

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 02:33:50 PM

Pay attention.

Follow your own advice and pay attention to what I have said, and try responding to that.
For example, pay attention to who I was replying to.
You quoted my comment which was a response to smokey.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 09, 2022, 02:33:50 PM

I’ve just pointed out the impossibility of creating a physical FE scientific model just like I pointed out the impossibility of a conceptual one.

You have ASSERTED it, without justification.

Again, where is your set of requirements that something needs to meet in order to be a scientific model?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 12:25:57 AM

Firstly the use by Jack Blockhead of  the situation during the early 1900s in regards to work on the atom in no way compares to anything to do with the flat earth.

When we consider the statements made by Timmy the moron, it certainly does compare.
The work of Bohr suffers from the same issues you are putting forward regarding the FE model.
At the time of Bohr, it was known that the Bohr model could only work for hydrogen, that it could not work for any other atom.
This means only some data can be used to support it, and plenty of other data would show it is wrong.

The requirements you attempt to put forward for a scientific model would exclude the model from Bohr.

So it is very much comparable and relevant.

But you wish to flee from this, because you know you cannot provide any set of requirements which exclude FE models, without excluding plenty of other models like the Bohr model.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 12:25:57 AM

Not only is it an impossibility for them to exist

You sure do love repeatedly asserting pure BS don't you?
Try actually demonstrating that it is impossible rather than repeatedly asserting it.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 12:25:57 AM

The earth is and had never been flat there is no debate.

The electrons in atoms have never been confined to discrete orbitals a fixed distance from the nucleus.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 12:25:57 AM

Jack Blockhead imagines a physical model of the flat earth could be made.

Timmy the moron things a FE model is an impossibility.
I would like him to explain why he thinks this.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 12:25:57 AM

Jack Blockhead will lie, squirm and put up smokescreens, go off on tangents, anything to avoid dealing with that burning question.

Timmy Moron will lie, squirm and put up smokescreens, go off on tangents, anything to avoid dealing with that burning question:
What is the coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, a set of requirements which the Bohr model of the atom passes?

My prediction is Timmy Moron will avoid answering any of those questions. He will lie and deflect and use whatever other dishonest BS he can think of, because he could never accept this heresy.

Are you so thick that you cant see the total disconnect between some idiot conspiracy believer in 2022 trying to reinvent the shape of the earth and Bohr back in the early 1900s working in what was the cutting edge of science. The two sit

Only a Blockheaded fool would try and compare the two.

How about you actually present one of these alleged FE scientific models you and your stupid mindless drones are convinced exist?

Why do you keep avoiding backing up your grossly stupid claims?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:13:48 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

I can read and comprehend perfectly fine.

I read nothing that precludes FET from being a model.

And speaking of which, who was the name of the expert you consulted that told you that FET can't be a model.

General Challenge.

There are some individual who claim there are such things as Flat Earth Scientific Models backed by plenty real scientific data.

If those certain individuals are so certain that these alleged FE scientific models exist how about they present some and see how they stand up to the criteria for scientific models recently presented by none other then 'Bumrash'


Its called putting your cash where your mouth is. So Boys its over to you.....

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:16:04 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:13:48 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

I can read and comprehend perfectly fine.

I read nothing that precludes FET from being a model.

And speaking of which, who was the name of the expert you consulted that told you that FET can't be a model.

Who was the expert you consulted who said there could? ...and which alleged FE scientific models were you referring to?

Please present them and let's see how that stack up.

General Challenge.

There are some individual who claim there are such things as Flat Earth Scientific Models backed by plenty real scientific data.

If those certain individuals are so certain that these alleged FE scientific models exist how about they present some and see how they stand up to the criteria for scientific models recently presented by none other then 'Bumrash'


Its called putting your cash where your mouth is. So Boys its over to you.....

Not really.

Show me where it states that FET can't be a scientific model, as that is your claim.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:22:03 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:16:04 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:13:48 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

I can read and comprehend perfectly fine.

I read nothing that precludes FET from being a model.

And speaking of which, who was the name of the expert you consulted that told you that FET can't be a model.

Who was the expert you consulted who said there could? ...and which alleged FE scientific models were you referring to?

Please present them and let's see how that stack up.

I'm not the one who believes that we only obtain knowledge from experts, so I'm curious to know who you gained this knowledge that FET can't be a model from.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:25:05 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:22:03 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:16:04 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:13:48 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

I can read and comprehend perfectly fine.

I read nothing that precludes FET from being a model.

And speaking of which, who was the name of the expert you consulted that told you that FET can't be a model.

Who was the expert you consulted who said there could? ...and which alleged FE scientific models were you referring to?

Please present them and let's see how that stack up.

I'm not the one who believes that we only obtain knowledge from experts, so I'm curious to know who you gained this knowledge that FET can't be a model from.

Well good for you. I hope that makes you feel happy.

Now how about so present some of those alleged FE scientific models you imagine exist.

Or is that beyond you?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

“Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations.”

All of that?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:13:48 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:06:48 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 10, 2022, 12:56:46 AM

A scientific model is a physical and/or mathematical and/or conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes. Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations. However, scientific models are not created to be factual statements about the world.
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/science/continuum/Pages/scimodels.aspx#:~:text=A%20scientific%20model%20is%20a,the%20patterns%20to%20be%20predicted.

That's been explained to Timmy previously.  He ignores it because it goes against his belief system.

Have you actually read what he said?

Present to one just one FE notion that meets that criteria. None do so the joke is on you fool.

You misunderstand it because you are just too dense with tremendous overtones of gross stupidity.

No, show me where it precludes FET from being a model.

“Scientists seek to identify and understand patterns in our world by drawing on their scientific knowledge to offer explanations that enable the patterns to be predicted. The models scientists create need to be consistent with our observations, inferences and current explanations.”

All of that?

So you are saying that there are no/none/zilch/zero/nada observations, and scientific test/experiements that can be made and performed that could have results that could be interpreted as Earth being flat?

Now go read it and take it on board and learn something

Again, follow your own advice.

There is nothing in that definition which precludes the possibility of FE models.

Are you so thick that you cant see the total disconnect between some idiot conspiracy believer in 2022 trying to reinvent the shape of the earth and Bohr back in the early 1900s working in what was the cutting edge of science. The two sit

Are you so thick that you can't see the clear connection between a FE model being rejected as not a model, because it doesn't match all the data or all the observations, and a model of the atom being rejected as not a model, because it doesn't match all the data or all the observations?

Only a moronic fool would pretend there is no connection.

Why do you keep avoiding backing up your grossly stupid claims?

Probably because I haven't made any grossly stupid claims so I have no need to back them up.
It is you and your strawmen making those stupid claims, which you continue to refuse to back up.
You are still entirely incapable of explaining why there can be no FE models.

I take it you cant read nor comprehend what words you presented then?

If you need to resort to BS like this, it shows that you cannot use that definition to support your claims.
If it did support your claim, you would be able to clearly demonstrate how.

Its called putting your cash where your mouth is.

Yes, something you are yet to do.
You make an insane claim that there can be no FE models, and that there is no FE data.
Yet instead of defending it you just deflect and try to shift the burden of proof.

You are no better than a theist that comes in boldly proclaiming a god exists and that their religion is true; and demands you prove them wrong when you challenge them.

So you are saying that there are no/none/zilch/zero/nada observations, and scientific test/experiements that can be made and performed that could have results that could be interpreted as Earth being flat?

Nope.  I’m saying there are loads of other observations and experiments that are entirely inconsistent with the earth being flat.

These are ignored, dismissed as lies or given explanations that themselves massively contract with very well understood science geometry, etc.  None of which is great basis for a scientific model, and certainly not going by that definition.

Nope.  I’m saying there are loads of other observations and experiments that are entirely inconsistent with the earth being flat.

These are ignored, dismissed as lies or given explanations that themselves massively contract with very well understood science geometry, etc.  None of which is great basis for a scientific model, and certainly not going by that definition.

You mean like the loads of other observations and experiments that were entirely inconsistent with the Bohr atomic model, i.e. the spectra of every atom other than hydrogen?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 10, 2022, 01:21:04 PM

Nope.  I’m saying there are loads of other observations and experiments that are entirely inconsistent with the earth being flat.

These are ignored, dismissed as lies or given explanations that themselves massively contract with very well understood science geometry, etc.  None of which is great basis for a scientific model, and certainly not going by that definition.

You mean like the loads of other observations and experiments that were entirely inconsistent with the Bohr atomic model, i.e. the spectra of every atom other than hydrogen?

I was just commenting on the definition of a scientific model quoted above.

But if you insist on dragging me into your ridiculously endless argument with timeisup-

Bohr’s model was an improvement on previous models.  It explained more observations than it’s predecessors and made testable  predictions.  It was superseded by better models that could explain more. 

Flat earth explains far less than established science, and relies on unfounded conspiracy theories of vast scale to dismiss observations and/or breaking multiple other fields of science. 

You’re really suggesting the two are alike?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 10:36:22 AM

So you are saying that there are no/none/zilch/zero/nada observations, and scientific test/experiements that can be made and performed that could have results that could be interpreted as Earth being flat?

Nope.  I’m saying there are loads of other observations and experiments that are entirely inconsistent with the earth being flat.

These are ignored, dismissed as lies or given explanations that themselves massively contract with very well understood science geometry, etc.  None of which is great basis for a scientific model, and certainly not going by that definition.

From a FE perspective, yes they dismiss that.  That's not the point.  There is data out there that can create a model.  Whether the model can be shown to be wrong via other data, doesn't mean there can't be a model.

You’re really suggesting the two are alike?

In the sense that they are vastly incomplete descriptions of the world which have been shown to be inadequate by plenty of evidence (including evidence which existed at the time of the creation of the Bohr model), but which can be useful for quite limited purposes, yes.

No one is dragging you into anything.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 09, 2022, 12:40:42 AM

you haven't realised I am referring to physical models whilst you and MykoiT are referring to conceptual models?

No moron, I have realised that you want to focus on physical models, as you appear to be too intellectually challenged to be capable of considering any other kind of model.
But even then, there is no requirement for it to be accurate.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on December 09, 2022, 12:40:42 AM

Why don't you look at the basic requirement for a physical model which includes similar geometry and scale.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Given the fact that there are things specifically referred to as SCALE models, that strongly indicates a physical model does not need to be to scale.
Likewise, the existence of physical solar system models, which also aren't too scale shows quite conclusively that they don't need to be to scale.

So no, a scale is not a basic requirement for a physical model.
You would have to be a pretty big moron to think that all physical models must be to scale (or have a scale as a basic requirement). Especially after you presented physical models which were not to scale.

We can also look at these solar system models and see plenty have Earth as a non-descript ball or circle, without showing any of the continents, and a similar thing is true for the other rocky planets.
Most entirely leave out the asteroid belt and dwarf planets, and the trojan asteroids and so on.

So it is quite clear that it doesn't even need to be complete.

So the "basic geometry" part that is required would be that it is flat, or has a roughly flat surface.

So with those requirements it is certainly possible to make a FE model.

Jock, whether I'm concentrating on physical models or conceptual models, either way, you are screwed with this ridiculous argument of yours.

But, sticking just to a physical model, by definition of physical models, there must be a similarity in geometry to the original. (Feel free to look up the definition of physical models) And no, there is no similarity in geometry between a flat piece of paper on your desk, and a tennis ball or basketball. "Flattish" doesn't cut the mustard either. That's Turbonium talk.

Why do you use the solar system as a comparison and say you can't make a model of it? I have a very accurate moon and earth to scale model, on my desk and a larger one hanging across my living room.  I've recreated the solar system as a scale model, using a marble to represent the sun, and the planets represented as dots, and not going into scale for each of the planets. For the solar system, what's important in recreating, is the scale of distances between bodies. Hell yeah, I've even thrown in the position of the asteroid belt. Happy?

To make a physical model of the flat entire earth, even not worrying about the shape of continents, you have no data to determine the shape of this "flat Earth" or it's size, to scale it down.

Why do flat earthers settle on it being circular?

What flat earth data do you have, Jock, that points to flat earth being circular, and not square, oval, rectangular, triangular, star shaped, etc?

Literally, to make a physical model of the flat earth, you have nothing to progress you from a flat piece of paper on your desk, to anything else. Your scissors are ready to cut the paper to your flat earth shape, but you have no data to guide you to what that shape is. All you have is a flat surface for your flat earth model, with no defining shape. You cannot make a model of anything without knowing the shape of what you are making.

This is the real reason you refuse my challenge to make a flat earth model of the entire Earth, isn't it, Jack? Admit it.

Otherwise, what are you proposing, JackBlack? Surely one as astute as yourself has realised this? That you whip out your piece of a4 sheet of paper, lay it on your desk before you, and you can conveniently declare that your flat earth model and win this argument? This is what you are proposing, isn't it?

So, why not just declare every flat surface to be found on planet Earth satisfies as a model of the entire flat earth in your expert flat earther opinion?

Even a conceptual model of a flat earth, is still a conceptual model of it's physicality - it's geometry. It has nowhere to progress from a generic flat surface, either.

Stop saying you can make a flat earth model of the entire Earth using only flat earth data, Jack. You cannot.

You're embarrassing yourself. Your face is literally covered in egg right now.