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

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

Moron, if I was screwed, don't you think you would have been able to providing a compelling argument and actually defend it rather than deflecting with pathetic demands and dishonest double standards?

But, sticking just to a physical model, by definition of physical models, there must be a similarity in geometry to the original.

So you are saying a physical model of the atom must have electrons with a similar geometry to the original, that is electrons being described by probability distribution functions, rather than as small balls in an orbit around the nucleus?

As for looking up the definition, how about these:
"A physical model is a simplified material representation, usually on a reduced scale, of an object or phenomenon that needs to investigated."
"A physical model represents a physical construct whose characteristics resemble the physical characteristics of the modeled system."
"A physical model is a framework of ideas and concepts from which we interpret our observations and experimental results."
(although, to be fair, that last one was a model of physics, rather than a model which is represented physically)
No requirement for the geometry to be a perfect match.

Or how about this little blurb from wikipedia:

A physical model (most commonly referred to simply as a model but in this context distinguished from a conceptual model) is a smaller or larger physical copy of an object. The object being modelled may be small (for example, an atom) or large (for example, the Solar System). In some sense, a physical model "is always the reification of some conceptual model; the conceptual model is conceived ahead as the blueprint of the physical one", which is then constructed as conceived.[3]

The geometry of the model and the object it represents are often similar in the sense that one is a rescaling of the other; in such cases, the scale is an important characteristic. However, in many cases the similarity is only approximate or even intentionally distorted. Sometimes the distortion is systematic (e.g., a fixed scale horizontally and a larger fixed scale vertically when modelling topography of a large area, as opposed to a model of a smaller mountain region, which may well use the same scale horizontally and vertically, showing the true slopes).

Note that it doesn't require significant similarity, and even allows intentional distortion.

Why do you use the solar system as a comparison and say you can't make a model of it?

See, this is another great example of why I know I'm not screwed.
If I was, you wouldn't need to lie like that.
Just like Timmy, you are setting up a strawman to attack.

I said that there are plenty of examples of not-to-scale models of the solar system which demonstrate quite well that scale is not a requirement.

So we can ditch this idea of it needing to be a scale model.

To make a physical model of the flat entire earth

Again, why does it need to be a model of the ENTIRE earth? Why can't it be a model of part of Earth?

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.

No, it is because it is a deflection from your inability to defend your claim.
Like I said to Timmy, you are like a theist asserting a god exists and demanding you prove it doesn't. In this case as an example by demanding the atheist sets up an experiment where complex life is formed without any intelligent input.
The atheist is under no obligation to meet this ridiculous demand. Not doing so does not mean a god exists.

Otherwise, what are you proposing, JackBlack?

That your claim is not substantiated.
That FE models can exist.
That Earth not being flat does not preclude the possibility of a FE model.

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

Why? You are the one needing to deflect and set up strawmen.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 10, 2022, 10:33:16 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.

“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?

Well how about you present and show the world those alleged FE scientific observations and data that allows them to construct those alleged mythical FE scientific models you say exist.

Why are you ‘boys’ so reluctant to slap your claimed FE scientific models on the table for inspection?

One could think that your just making it all up and they are mere figments of your imagination.

Well! What’s stopping you.

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

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 keep just saying that but never present any!

Why is that?

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

Stop beating about the bush and present them along with information about the author and how the data was collected and all that other good stuff.

Ps.
Looking out the window does not count. Could you pass that on to Blockhead as he still thinks it does!

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:01:48 AM

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.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:10:34 AM

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.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:10:34 AM

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.

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

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.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 10, 2022, 10:23:33 AM

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.

Well how about you present some of those elusive models YOU claim exist and we can all see.

You keep saying alleged FE models exist but to date you have presented a grand total of..none!

You are expecting people to take your word that something exists because you say it does.

I’ve explain why, due to the total lack of science, they can’t exist. You say they do so where are they.

Your argument could well be for the existence of unicorns having about the same credibility.

Just provide an example of your very secret alleged FE scientific model and we can all see if it passes muster.

It’s pretty simple Blockhead. If it quacks like a duck and all that.

Tell you what you could present that alleged FE scientific model while riding that unicorn you claim to have!

Quote from: JackBlack on December 09, 2022, 01:49:42 AM

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.

I for one think he, Mr Smokestack, made his points very well Blockhead. Don’t you agree?

As I’ve asked you before, that’s Blockhead I’m asking,  how would you start making you FE physical model?

What would be the data source you would use for measurements so you could start cutting and gluing and all that other good modelling things?

This is a general challenge to all those who think FE scientific models exist.

With all the paper, glue, wood, plastic etc you would ever need how would you go about making a FE physical FE scientific model roughly to scale showing with a reasonable amount of accuracy the relative positions of the continents.

There are any number of such ‘spherical ones’ available all to scale.

So how about some instructions on how to make a FE version! and the source of the PLENTY REAL DATA that you would use.

Now of course it’s an impossibility no scientific scale version of a flat earth could ever be made it’s just not possible. How can it be?

Jack Blockhead and his ‘boys’ have been arguing that it is possible without EVER offering any evidence.

Why?

Because there is none. That’s why they would never accept the above challenge as it’s impossible.

Is that not right Blockhead?

Well how about you present

Or, how about you stop deflecting and instead provide the set of requirements which excludes FE models without excluding the models of your idols like Bohr?

Why are you so reluctant to slap your claimed requirements on the table for inspection?

One could think that your just making it all up and they are mere figments of your imagination.

Well! What’s stopping you?

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

You sure do love projecting, moron.
All you do is provide garbage, without justifying your delusional claims.

Stop beating about the bush and present the set of requirements for a model which the models of your idols meet but that FE models fail to meet.

You keep saying alleged FE models exist but to date you have presented a grand total of..none!

Again, it isn't that I am saying they can exist just out of the blue.
I am objecting to your delusional claim that they can't exist.
A claim you are yet to substantiate.
A claim you attempted to substantiate by saying that there is no FE data, and when FE data was provided you just repeatedly lied and claimed it doesn't exist.

You are expecting people to take your word that something can't exist because you say it can't.

I’ve explain why

No, you have asserted why, with no explanation.
If you wish to claim it is the total lack of science, then that is just deflecting onto another claim.
Prove it has a total lack of science.

Your argument could well be for the existence of unicorns having about the same credibility.

Your argument could well be against the possibility of the existence of the Galápagos tortoise.
It wasn't that they didn't exist, it is just that they were so damn tasty they didn't make it back.

But if you want to claim it is impossible, the burden is on you.

Just provide an example of your very secret

Or, how about you provide an example of the set of requirements which makes FE models impossible?

It’s pretty simple Moron. If it quacks like a duck and all that.

I for one think he, Mr Smokestack, made his points very well Blockhead. Don’t you agree?

I think he failed miserably, resorting to the same dishonest BS you do all the time, moron.

This is a general challenge to all those who think FE scientific models exist.

And here you are yet again shifting the burden of proof.
You are claiming it is impossible for them to exist.
The burden of that claim is on YOU!

Don't try and demand others produce a FE model just because you can't show they can't exist.

So stop with all the dishonest BS and provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements to clearly demonstrate why there can't be FE models, which wouldn't also exclude plenty of models of your idols.
If you can't, then stop acting like a complete imbecile, cultist by claiming they can't exist.

But we both know that wont happen, as there is no set of requirements which would exclude the possibility of FE models, while allowing the works of those like Bohr to count as models. So you would either need to accept their can be FE models, or reject the models of your idols.
And we both know that would never happen, because that would be heresy for you.

Isn't that right moron?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:01:47 AM

Well how about you present

Or, how about you stop deflecting and instead provide the set of requirements which excludes FE models without excluding the models of your idols like Bohr?

Why are you so reluctant to slap your claimed requirements on the table for inspection?

One could think that your just making it all up and they are mere figments of your imagination.

Well! What’s stopping you?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:06:25 AM

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

You sure do love projecting, moron.
All you do is provide garbage, without justifying your delusional claims.

Stop beating about the bush and present the set of requirements for a model which the models of your idols meet but that FE models fail to meet.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:13:19 AM

You keep saying alleged FE models exist but to date you have presented a grand total of..none!

Again, it isn't that I am saying they can exist just out of the blue.
I am objecting to your delusional claim that they can't exist.
A claim you are yet to substantiate.
A claim you attempted to substantiate by saying that there is no FE data, and when FE data was provided you just repeatedly lied and claimed it doesn't exist.

You are expecting people to take your word that something can't exist because you say it can't.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:13:19 AM

I’ve explain why

No, you have asserted why, with no explanation.
If you wish to claim it is the total lack of science, then that is just deflecting onto another claim.
Prove it has a total lack of science.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:13:19 AM

Your argument could well be for the existence of unicorns having about the same credibility.

Your argument could well be against the possibility of the existence of the Galápagos tortoise.
It wasn't that they didn't exist, it is just that they were so damn tasty they didn't make it back.

But if you want to claim it is impossible, the burden is on you.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:13:19 AM

Just provide an example of your very secret

Or, how about you provide an example of the set of requirements which makes FE models impossible?

It’s pretty simple Moron. If it quacks like a duck and all that.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:18:53 AM

I for one think he, Mr Smokestack, made his points very well Blockhead. Don’t you agree?

I think he failed miserably, resorting to the same dishonest BS you do all the time, moron.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:30:11 AM

This is a general challenge to all those who think FE scientific models exist.

And here you are yet again shifting the burden of proof.
You are claiming it is impossible for them to exist.
The burden of that claim is on YOU!

Don't try and demand others produce a FE model just because you can't show they can't exist.

So stop with all the dishonest BS and provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements to clearly demonstrate why there can't be FE models, which wouldn't also exclude plenty of models of your idols.
If you can't, then stop acting like a complete imbecile, cultist by claiming they can't exist.

But we both know that wont happen, as there is no set of requirements which would exclude the possibility of FE models, while allowing the works of those like Bohr to count as models. So you would either need to accept their can be FE models, or reject the models of your idols.
And we both know that would never happen, because that would be heresy for you.

Isn't that right moron?

But tortoises from the Galapagos do exist, I’ve seen them, while I’ve never ever laid eyes on one of your claimed mythical  FE scientific models! Not ever!

Where are they? Are they being produced by unicorns living on Atlantis?

Your arguments is based on you not liking and objective to what I say as it rankles with your weird EVERYTHING CAN BE CHALLENGED BELIEF. That’s is EVERYTHING apart from what YOU say as that can never be challenged. Apparently in your  religion there is one commandment.

Blockhead is always right.

So come on Blockhead show us some of those unicorn produced Mythical FE scientific models you keep claiming exist.

You could also supply me with instructions how to make my very own to scale flat earth model.

Come on Blockhead as you know everything how do I do it!

But tortoises from the Galapagos do exist

Great job missing the point moron, but I presume that was intentional.
The point was it took quite some time for them to make their way back to England.
And you claiming FE models are impossible would be like an English lord of that time claiming those tortoises couldn't possibly exist.

Now again, quite with the dishonest BS and instead provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for a model which the models of your idols don't fail.

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.

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.

I’d say it’s exactly the point.

Conspiracy theories, allegations of lies, arbitrary rejection inconvenient data and inventing pseudo science explanations to arrive at predetermined conclusion have no place in science.  Any “model” that relies on such things cannot be scientific.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 10, 2022, 02:23:53 PM

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.

Sorry, I assumed you just couldn’t let that comparison go due to your ongoing argument.  But you really think these are roughly equivalent examples of scientific models?

Bohr’s atom was certainly useful in furthering scientific understanding, despite being superseded by better models.  That’s how science generally progresses.

How exactly is a flat earth “model” useful?

Sorry, I assumed you just couldn’t let that comparison go due to your ongoing argument.  But you really think these are roughly equivalent examples of scientific models?

The equivalence depends entirely upon what they are being used for.
Overall, I would not say they are equivalent. But for the purpose of this "discussion", where timmy has tried to claim that there can't be FE models because Earth isn't flat, or there can't be FE models because data exists that shows Earth isn't flat, then yes, it is equivalent, as the Bohr model is likewise not a full representation of reality, and was created at a time when there was already data that existed that demonstrated it doesn't work.

But that equivalence in these aspects does not make it equivalent in all aspects.

How exactly is a flat earth “model” useful?

It drastically simplifies the math required compared to a spherical Earth (or an even more complicated oblate spheroid, or an even more complicated geoid, or even more complex still) when calculating things for small areas.
For example, say you have a pen where 2 sides run north-south and 2 sides run east-west.
The southern side is 40 m long and the western side is 20 m long. How large is this pen?
For a FE model, it is quite simple, 40*20 m^2 = 800 m^2.
For a RE model, you need to know the latitude, and do some complex math to work out what is basically 800 m^2 to the level of uncertainty you have for the length measurements.

For so many purposes, the curvature of Earth makes such little difference it is entirely impractical to include it in the calculation.
So instead a flat Earth model is used without curvature.

This can also be the case where the problem is already complex, so you simplify it.

If you would like a complex example of such a use, consider NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

"This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth."
"The system equations have been broadly formulated to accommodate a wide variety of applications."

So NASA certainly seems to think it was useful, at least in 1988. They even had it non-rotating.

To suggest Earth being round means there can be no FE model (or anything similar to that, including suggesting there can't be a FE model) would just give ammunition to FEers who find this document who will then proclaim that even NASA knows Earth is flat and stationary, and they admitted it in this report.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 01:14:42 AM

But tortoises from the Galapagos do exist

Great job missing the point moron, but I presume that was intentional.
The point was it took quite some time for them to make their way back to England.
And you claiming FE models are impossible would be like an English lord of that time claiming those tortoises couldn't possibly exist.

Now again, quite with the dishonest BS and instead provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for a model which the models of your idols don't fail.

Missing the point. You've been missing the point since your first comment.

Where are your instructions for constructing the flat earth model you claim can be built?  Where are they Blockhead? failed once more to present them. Why is that? Could it be they dont exist? YOU tell me Blaockhead.

You claim that 'PLENTY REAL DATA' exists. You said that. Let me remind you:-

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

So where is it Blockhead? have you left it attached to that horn of your pet unicorn?

You just keep avoiding supporting your claim.

There is as much chance of 'PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA existing for the FE as there is PLENTY REAL DATA existing for the existence of Middle earth. In reality what they both have in common is that they are both fictions born of a fantasy, just like all your claims.

Now THIS is FUNNY...YOU say:-

"The point was it took quite some time for them to make their way back to England."

Are you saying all this alleged FE 'PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA' is on a ship steaming from Altantis in the possession of a unicorn along with a plethora of alleged FE scientific models!

The difference is BLOCKHEAD the Galapagos and their tortoises were and are real while what you say “Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model” is NOT real.

Missing the point.

Yes, you sure do love missing the point don't you.

And we both know why, because dealing with the point would require you to commit heresy.

Once more, stop with the dishonest BS and provide the consistent, coherent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, which the work of your idols doesn't fail.

Where are they Moron? failed once more to present them. Why is that? Could it be they dont exist? YOU tell me Moron.

So where is it Moron? have you left it attached to that horn of your pet unicorn?

You just keep avoiding supporting your claim.
Which isn't surprising given your claim is just religious BS.

Are you saying all this alleged FE 'PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA' is on a ship steaming from Altantis in the possession of a unicorn along with a plethora of alleged FE scientific models!

No, I'm saying you were already provided with data which you just repeatedly ignored because you can't handle your pathetic cult beign wrong.
Given how you just repeatedly lied by claiming it wasn't provided, I see no point in providing you with any more data or models, scientific or otherwise, for you to just ignore and lie about.
Maybe if you weren't so pathetic and dishonest I would be more inclined to entertain your delusional BS.

Now again, where are the requirements for a model?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 01:55:36 AM

Sorry, I assumed you just couldn’t let that comparison go due to your ongoing argument.  But you really think these are roughly equivalent examples of scientific models?

The equivalence depends entirely upon what they are being used for.
Overall, I would not say they are equivalent. But for the purpose of this "discussion", where timmy has tried to claim that there can't be FE models because Earth isn't flat, or there can't be FE models because data exists that shows Earth isn't flat, then yes, it is equivalent, as the Bohr model is likewise not a full representation of reality, and was created at a time when there was already data that existed that demonstrated it doesn't work.

But that equivalence in these aspects does not make it equivalent in all aspects.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 01:55:36 AM

How exactly is a flat earth “model” useful?

It drastically simplifies the math required compared to a spherical Earth (or an even more complicated oblate spheroid, or an even more complicated geoid, or even more complex still) when calculating things for small areas.
For example, say you have a pen where 2 sides run north-south and 2 sides run east-west.
The southern side is 40 m long and the western side is 20 m long. How large is this pen?
For a FE model, it is quite simple, 40*20 m^2 = 800 m^2.
For a RE model, you need to know the latitude, and do some complex math to work out what is basically 800 m^2 to the level of uncertainty you have for the length measurements.

For so many purposes, the curvature of Earth makes such little difference it is entirely impractical to include it in the calculation.
So instead a flat Earth model is used without curvature.

This can also be the case where the problem is already complex, so you simplify it.

If you would like a complex example of such a use, consider NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

"This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth."
"The system equations have been broadly formulated to accommodate a wide variety of applications."

So NASA certainly seems to think it was useful, at least in 1988. They even had it non-rotating.

To suggest Earth being round means there can be no FE model (or anything similar to that, including suggesting there can't be a FE model) would just give ammunition to FEers who find this document who will then proclaim that even NASA knows Earth is flat and stationary, and they admitted it in this report.

YOU say

"To suggest Earth being round means there can be no FE model (or anything similar to that, including suggesting there can't be a FE model) would just give ammunition to FEers who find this document who will then proclaim that even NASA knows Earth is flat and stationary, and they admitted it in this report."

Well how about you provide the instructions for making this alleged FE flat earth model to scale.

What NASA did or did not do and why they did it has no bearing on the claim you are making. Its just one more piece of desperate deflection.

Your stupidity is once more demonstrated. NASA used a model based on a flat non rotating plane not to show the world was flat idiot but as an aid to their  LINEAR CALCULATIONS. Its got nothing to do with the Earth being flat but all to do with creating an environment for their LINEAR calculations fathead. Once more you grasp at and misrepresent a real world real scientific study and try to shoehorn into your bonkers FE thinking.

How about you dispense with the deflection and present some of those 'alleged FE scientific models YOU say exist. Remember when you said this:-

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

if FE has 'PLENTY' as you claim why go looking to NASA, it being the very source of all the evil in the world according to those FE believers you so admire for their alleged scientific way of thinking!

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 03:10:40 AM

Missing the point.

Yes, you sure do love missing the point don't you.

And we both know why, because dealing with the point would require you to commit heresy.

Once more, stop with the dishonest BS and provide the consistent, coherent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, which the work of your idols doesn't fail.

Where are they Moron? failed once more to present them. Why is that? Could it be they dont exist? YOU tell me Moron.

So where is it Moron? have you left it attached to that horn of your pet unicorn?

You just keep avoiding supporting your claim.
Which isn't surprising given your claim is just religious BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 03:10:40 AM

Are you saying all this alleged FE 'PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA' is on a ship steaming from Altantis in the possession of a unicorn along with a plethora of alleged FE scientific models!

No, I'm saying you were already provided with data which you just repeatedly ignored because you can't handle your pathetic cult beign wrong.
Given how you just repeatedly lied by claiming it wasn't provided, I see no point in providing you with any more data or models, scientific or otherwise, for you to just ignore and lie about.
Maybe if you weren't so pathetic and dishonest I would be more inclined to entertain your delusional BS.

Now again, where are the requirements for a model?

Is that ship with your pet unicorn not arrived from Atlantis yet with all that alleged good FE scientific stuff?

How about you stop all this nonsense and just present your   alleged FE scientific models. It would save so much time.

The requirement for a scientific model were provided comments ago by your pal Bumrash. I agreed with what he said. Do you not agree is that the problem? If it is what are YOUR requirements?

You sure like using the word pathetic, which is ironic don't you think given the pathetic nature of your position.

PS.

You said this:-

"You really should make up your mind and try presenting a coherent argument."

For once I agree with you. So how about it BLOCKHEAD. You defend it of other so how about you take some of your own advice?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 01:55:36 AM

Sorry, I assumed you just couldn’t let that comparison go due to your ongoing argument.  But you really think these are roughly equivalent examples of scientific models?

The equivalence depends entirely upon what they are being used for.
Overall, I would not say they are equivalent. But for the purpose of this "discussion", where timmy has tried to claim that there can't be FE models because Earth isn't flat, or there can't be FE models because data exists that shows Earth isn't flat, then yes, it is equivalent, as the Bohr model is likewise not a full representation of reality, and was created at a time when there was already data that existed that demonstrated it doesn't work.

But that equivalence in these aspects does not make it equivalent in all aspects.

This is exactly what I mean by being dragged into your arguments with other people.  I gave my own reasons why I don’t consider flat earth “models” to be in any scientific (largely being not based on scientific reasoning or methodology).  My opinions are entirely separate from anything Timeisup or anyone else says.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 01:55:36 AM

How exactly is a flat earth “model” useful?

It drastically simplifies the math required compared to a spherical Earth (or an even more complicated oblate spheroid, or an even more complicated geoid, or even more complex still) when calculating things for small areas.
For example, say you have a pen where 2 sides run north-south and 2 sides run east-west.
The southern side is 40 m long and the western side is 20 m long. How large is this pen?
For a FE model, it is quite simple, 40*20 m^2 = 800 m^2.
For a RE model, you need to know the latitude, and do some complex math to work out what is basically 800 m^2 to the level of uncertainty you have for the length measurements.

For so many purposes, the curvature of Earth makes such little difference it is entirely impractical to include it in the calculation.
So instead a flat Earth model is used without curvature.

This can also be the case where the problem is already complex, so you simplify it.

If you would like a complex example of such a use, consider NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

"This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth."
"The system equations have been broadly formulated to accommodate a wide variety of applications."

So NASA certainly seems to think it was useful, at least in 1988. They even had it non-rotating.

What’s missing from this is the whole point of a scientific model, which is to help explain and understand a thing.  A model of the shape of the earth should be to describe and understand the Earth.  That’s fundamentally different from simplifying equations by saying that curvature is insignificant.

NASA were creating a flight model, not a flat earth model.

To suggest Earth being round means there can be no FE model (or anything similar to that, including suggesting there can't be a FE model) would just give ammunition to FEers who find this document who will then proclaim that even NASA knows Earth is flat and stationary, and they admitted it in this report.

Or maybe why it’s necessary to be clear that modeling other things using approximations of flat terrain doesn’t mean that “NASA uses flat earth models”?

Not that it really matters, as flat earthers would twist it to mean whatever they want, regardless of what you or I have to say about it.

Quote from: Any Real Debate on October 29, 2022, 03:47:19 PM

What makes this Flat Earth Hypothesis more realistic that the Globe Earth Model? 

Very early religious indoctrination, as in, but not limited to The Bible, teaches children to believe that everything must be simple, not complex.  This belief in simplicity extends to everything.  There is life and death; black and white; good and evil.  Critical thinking is not allowed.  When schools try to teach nature, including evolution, they revolt against the elitists.  They start automatically discarding science and everyone who supports science.  COVID and the vaccines are an excellent example.  But it goes into all aspects of their lives.  Global warming?  911?  It also brings about a belief in cult personality leaders.  Pastors,  televangelists, prophets, the Second Coming, Trump.

 You asked, "What makes this Flat Earth Hypothesis more realistic that the Globe Earth Model? ".  The real question is "To what kind of person is the Flat Earth Hypothesis more acceptable"?  The answer is "A person who has been indoctrinated, usually since early childhood, into fundamentalist religious beliefs".

I know I am late to the party with this, but it cannot be ignored.

When it comes to the Bible, there is noting within it that says the Earth if flat. You can seen some verses that way but most, if not all are quoted out of context.

The Bible says who, while science attempts to figure out how. Science and the Bible are no at odds with each other. Well unless you so closed minded that you must believe they are.

I am Christian to my core. And I study science too. I know  legion of people just like me. So, careful with your brush there. You assertion needs a new look, because it does not fit your theory.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 03:04:49 PM

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

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 keep just saying that but never present any!

Why is that?

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

Stop beating about the bush and present them along with information about the author and how the data was collected and all that other good stuff.

Ps.
Looking out the window does not count. Could you pass that on to Blockhead as he still thinks it does!

I'm not a flat earther and don't support their view of reality.

That doesn't mean they can't have a model.   The Geocentric Model of the universe is wrong, but it is still a model.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 03:04:49 PM

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

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 keep just saying that but never present any!

Why is that?

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

Stop beating about the bush and present them along with information about the author and how the data was collected and all that other good stuff.

Ps.
Looking out the window does not count. Could you pass that on to Blockhead as he still thinks it does!

I'm not a flat earther and don't support their view of reality.

That doesn't mean they can't have a model.   The Geocentric Model of the universe is wrong, but it is still a model.

Could you present one that we could all examine?

So many people say they exist but none are ever presented. Strange.

You yourself have on a number of occasions have claimed that they exist but not once have you actually reveal one.

I find all this saying something exists and shying away from presenting sone evidence rather perplexing.

Possibly you could explain how a scale model of the flat earth could be produced. Where do you think the data for its construction could be found? You must know as you do say they actually exist.

So how  about it then?

Ps.
Being wrong is rather irrelevant when it comes to scientific models. Lots of them are found out to be wrong. The thing is they being scientific means they meet the criteria. A model just based on a fiction or fantasy is a different thing entirely. Got that?

The thing is they being scientific means they meet the criteria.

Please enumerate specifically what criteria it is that constitutes a model.

Here's a model...

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 12:06:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 10, 2022, 03:04:49 PM

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

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 keep just saying that but never present any!

Why is that?

Your pal Pvt Blockhead does just same. Plenty of garbage empty words and deflection, but no alleged FE scientific models!

Stop beating about the bush and present them along with information about the author and how the data was collected and all that other good stuff.

Ps.
Looking out the window does not count. Could you pass that on to Blockhead as he still thinks it does!

I'm not a flat earther and don't support their view of reality.

That doesn't mean they can't have a model.   The Geocentric Model of the universe is wrong, but it is still a model.

I see the indoctrination here that flat earthers can have flat earth models, runs deep!

With all due respect, the earth at the centre of the geocentric model of the universe, is a globe.

The flat Earth terrestrial models that have been made, have been made using globe earth data with distorted views of continents. They are works of fiction. 

JackBlack says a flat earth model can be made purely from flat earth data, and he is adamant the flat earth model he makes, can include the entire Earth. I have explained why that is impossible. But he refuses to meet the challenge and make said model.

What NASA did or did not do and why they did it has no bearing on the claim you are making.

Really?
So you think NASA making a model which utilises a FE, which can thus be characterised as a FE model has no bearing on if FE models can exist or not?
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Your stupidity is once more demonstrated. NASA used a model based on a flat non rotating plane not to show the world was flat

No, your stupidity and dishonest is once more demonstrated you complete imbecile.
Did I say they used it to show Earth is flat? No.
Did I say they used a FE model? YES.
The simple fact is NASA made a FE model.
Yet here you are claiming FE models can't exist.

So again, quit with the dishonest BS, quit the with the pathetic deflections and lies and demands for what has already been provided.

Instead provide the coherent, consistent set of requirements for what constitutes a model, which we can then apply to the products of the idols you worship.

I see the indoctrination here that flat earthers can have flat earth models, runs deep!

You mean the indoctrination of Timmy's anti-science cult has run deep?
And you are drinking the cool-aid and refusing to admit to things this cult deems to be heresy.

JackBlack says a flat earth model can be made purely from flat earth data, and he is adamant the flat earth model he makes, can include the entire Earth. I have explained why that is impossible. But he refuses to meet the challenge and make said model.

No, you haven't explained why it is impossible.
You have asserted it is impossible, and attempted to use an extremely dishonest double standard.

RE models have existed for thousands of years, well before they had mapped the entire globe.
So there is clearly no requirement to have mapped the entire Earth to produce a model of Earth, nor is there a requirement for the model to be of the entire Earth.
There are plenty of models which exist which get the geometry vastly incorrect, and the scale vastly incorrect, so clearly neither of those are requirements for a model.

Just like timmy, you are incapable of proving a coherent, consistent set of requirements for what a constitutes a model, which can be applied to things you accept are models without these failing, and then applied to a FE to show it is impossible.

Just like timmy, your argument is irrational and religious. You see FE models as heresy, so you attack.

This is exactly what I mean by being dragged into your arguments with other people.  I gave my own reasons why I don’t consider flat earth “models” to be in any scientific (largely being not based on scientific reasoning or methodology).  My opinions are entirely separate from anything Timeisup or anyone else says.

And the issue is that most of those reasons apply equally to other models.
Again, the Bohr model was made at a time where there were already observations that demonstrated it didn't work.
These observations where ignored to construct the Bohr model of the atom, which one could argue should really be called the Bohr model of hydrogen, as it only works for hydrogen.

What’s missing from this is the whole point of a scientific model, which is to help explain and understand a thing.  A model of the shape of the earth should be to describe and understand the Earth.  That’s fundamentally different from simplifying equations by saying that curvature is insignificant.

Not really.
A model is not simply used to understand or explain.
It is used to make predictions and calculations or other things from it as well.

For example a model of a transistor is not simply used to understand how a transistor works, but also to create things like a computer.

Or maybe why it’s necessary to be clear that modeling other things using approximations of flat terrain doesn’t mean that “NASA uses flat earth models”?

I would say it is far more useful for them to understand that models are typically approximations, and these approximations are used to simplify, with you needing a model only as complex as required to produce results to the desired accuracy and precision, and that additional complexity is just complexity for the sake of it without improving results.

Not that it really matters, as flat earthers would twist it to mean whatever they want, regardless of what you or I have to say about it.

Yes, but it is better to not give them things they can use against you or other REers.

When it comes to the Bible, there is noting within it that says the Earth if flat. You can seen some verses that way but most, if not all are quoted out of context.

Well you missed the overall implication.
It wasn't so much that the Bible says Earth is flat (which it does), it is more the kind of religious thinking, where people believe pure nonsense because they are indoctrinated into it, where they are taught to accept without questioning or thinking.

But as you want to focus on this, no, there is no context to save it.
The Bible, when taken as a whole, depicts Earth as flat, and fundamentally inconsistent with reality.

Those who claim otherwise are merely trying to cling to their outdated beliefs while pretending these beliefs don't contradict reality.

The close minded ones are those who think the Bible must not contradict reality because it must be true.
The open minded ones can happily accept that the Bible does contradict reality, and either discard the bible as fiction, or cling to their beliefs by effectively claiming it is just meant as a story and isn't meant to be taken as a literal history or literal depictions of Earth, but even the latter is rather close minded considering just what the Bible contains.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 03:29:55 AM

What NASA did or did not do and why they did it has no bearing on the claim you are making.

Really?
So you think NASA making a model which utilises a FE, which can thus be characterised as a FE model has no bearing on if FE models can exist or not?
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 11, 2022, 03:29:55 AM

Your stupidity is once more demonstrated. NASA used a model based on a flat non rotating plane not to show the world was flat

No, your stupidity and dishonest is once more demonstrated you complete imbecile.
Did I say they used it to show Earth is flat? No.
Did I say they used a FE model? YES.
The simple fact is NASA made a FE model.
Yet here you are claiming FE models can't exist.

So again, quit with the dishonest BS, quit the with the pathetic deflections and lies and demands for what has already been provided.

Instead provide the coherent, consistent set of requirements for what constitutes a model, which we can then apply to the products of the idols you worship.

Total dishonest distortion of the facts used just to deflect from your inability to present any FE evidence, mainly because there is none.

Still not been able to put together your FE instruction to make a FE scientific model Blockhead.

The NASA smoke screen is really pathetic. Like using G=10 in calculations to give a ball park figure, NASA used a hypothetical situation where the ground was flat  and non rotating to simplify the environment. It had nothing whatsoever to do with your private delusion but everything to do with the linear calculations they were doing and nothing whatsoever to do with any flat earth notions. You are grossly stupid if you believe otherwise.

And still you offer no FE evidence!

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 04:09:01 AM

This is exactly what I mean by being dragged into your arguments with other people.  I gave my own reasons why I don’t consider flat earth “models” to be in any scientific (largely being not based on scientific reasoning or methodology).  My opinions are entirely separate from anything Timeisup or anyone else says.

And the issue is that most of those reasons apply equally to other models.
Again, the Bohr model was made at a time where there were already observations that demonstrated it didn't work.
These observations where ignored to construct the Bohr model of the atom, which one could argue should really be called the Bohr model of hydrogen, as it only works for hydrogen.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 04:09:01 AM

What’s missing from this is the whole point of a scientific model, which is to help explain and understand a thing.  A model of the shape of the earth should be to describe and understand the Earth.  That’s fundamentally different from simplifying equations by saying that curvature is insignificant.

Not really.
A model is not simply used to understand or explain.
It is used to make predictions and calculations or other things from it as well.

For example a model of a transistor is not simply used to understand how a transistor works, but also to create things like a computer.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 04:09:01 AM

Or maybe why it’s necessary to be clear that modeling other things using approximations of flat terrain doesn’t mean that “NASA uses flat earth models”?

I would say it is far more useful for them to understand that models are typically approximations, and these approximations are used to simplify, with you needing a model only as complex as required to produce results to the desired accuracy and precision, and that additional complexity is just complexity for the sake of it without improving results.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 11, 2022, 04:09:01 AM

Not that it really matters, as flat earthers would twist it to mean whatever they want, regardless of what you or I have to say about it.

Yes, but it is better to not give them things they can use against you or other REers.

There is no such thing as round earthers! Its just like saying there are water wetters!

Water is wet and the world is a globe, there is no debate and thats that. There is no belief system surrounding it so stop pretending there are two competing factions.

There is the truth and then there is the crazy deluded people who think the world is flat based on no science, but rather on belief.

You saying that FE has some science behind it is just pure mad.

Total dishonest distortion of the facts used just to deflect from your inability to present any FE evidence, mainly because there is none.

You sure do love your projection don't you?
Just how have I distorted the facts?

If you don't like it, take it up with NASA. Ask them why they used a FE model, rather than a RE model.

And still you offer no FE evidence!

You mean you are still to refute the data that I have provided and which you instead insist on ignoring because you would rather blatantly lie to everyone that admit to heresy; while also still refusing to provide the set of requirements to justify your own delusional BS.

There is no such thing as round earthers!

Really?
So you think no one thinks Earth is round, and everyone is a closet FEer?
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but I think Earth is round, and that makes me a REer.
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

There is the truth and then there is the crazy deluded people

Yes, the crazy deluded people who think there can't be FE models, who need to lie in virtually every post they make, and who are clearly members of a pathetic cult.

Now again, where is your set of requirements for what makes a model?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 12, 2022, 02:51:29 AM

Total dishonest distortion of the facts used just to deflect from your inability to present any FE evidence, mainly because there is none.

You sure do love your projection don't you?
Just how have I distorted the facts?

If you don't like it, take it up with NASA. Ask them why they used a FE model, rather than a RE model.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 12, 2022, 02:51:29 AM

And still you offer no FE evidence!

You mean you are still to refute the data that I have provided and which you instead insist on ignoring because you would rather blatantly lie to everyone that admit to heresy; while also still refusing to provide the set of requirements to justify your own delusional BS.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 12, 2022, 02:55:40 AM

There is no such thing as round earthers!

Really?
So you think no one thinks Earth is round, and everyone is a closet FEer?
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but I think Earth is round, and that makes me a REer.
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 12, 2022, 02:51:29 AM

There is the truth and then there is the crazy deluded people

Yes, the crazy deluded people who think there can't be FE models, who need to lie in virtually every post they make, and who are clearly members of a pathetic cult.

Now again, where is your set of requirements for what makes a model?

How does it feel to be a member of the deluded?

You will do anything, distort the truth, lie… whatever it takes!

To say NASA used a FE model is ridiculous which only a deluded fool would claim. You know exactly why NASA used those parameters in their calculations and it had nothing to do with the earth being flat! If you don’t then it just proves what s as Blockheaded fool you really are.

Once more you launch off into deflection after deflection. If you want to know the requirements for a scientific  model ask you pal bumrash as he posted one.

Which leads us to your biggest fail of all your failure to explain how a simple scale model of the flat earth could be produced. The model would of course have to show all the relative positions of the continents. So Blockhead given you have all that secret plenty real data how would you do it.

If you get stuck you could always ask NASA for help!

The question now is what evasion tactics will you now use to avoid answering that impossible to answer question?

That’s the very reason why you won’t answer it because it has no answer as it’s an impossible task!