Timeisup is a science advocator
No, he is an anti-science cultist, spitting in the face of science, and trying to turn into a religion.
He doesn't want you to follow the scientific method or think, he wants you to think you are a complete imbecile incapable of figuring anything at all out for yourself, and to instead just accept whatever his idols say.
He religiously attacks anything perceived to be against his cult, regardless of how truthful such a statement is.
So no, he certainly is supporting an anti-science cult.
Pretending it is advocating science or is science doesn't change that fact.
As for the definition, there are a variety of definitions for cult.
One simple one is "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."
The particular figure or object is the body of scientific knowledge that he agrees with, and those who produced it.
He is certainly devoted to it, and treats it with religious veneration.
Including using all the same dishonest tactics that religious people use.
So no, me accurately describing his cult is not me being lazy.
He is not using common sense, he is outright defying it.
Common sense dictates that you can have a model or hypothesis for almost anything. It doesn't need to be real. It doesn't need to be accurate.
For this specific topic, common sense would dictate that you can have a FE hypothesis and produce a FE model, and then test these, and find these insufficient to describe the world.
But he sees the mere possibility of such a thing as heresy against his cult, so he can't even bring himself to admit that.
Just like you're equally too lazy to look up the definition of a physical model on Wikipedia
You mean like I did and used it to demonstrate that your claims regarding are BS, and only apply to a subset of models?
I haven't asserted a flat earth model from flat earth data alone is impossible, I've fully explained why
In a manner that if applied honestly and consistently, would exclude loads of things which are accepted as models from being models, including the very things you provided as models, and which would preclude the possibility of a RE model existing until quite recently.
The atomic models you provided are not to scale and don't have similar geometry.
So you are applying a dishonest double standard, where you apply one standard for FE models to try and exclude them while entirely rejecting that standard for plenty of other models which you are happy to accept.
That demonstrates that you haven't fully explained, and instead you are just arbitrarily deciding their can't be FE models, without any honest, rational justification.
Then you put your foot in it again and stated there are plenty of models which get the geography vastly incorrect and the scale vastly incorrect. Give one example. Just one, example, Jack!
Firstly, it is geometry, not geography. Secondly, I already did. Remember the models of the atom you provided before?
Vastly incorrect geometry and scale.
My argument is flawlessly logical.
Your argument is entirely illogical based upon an extremely dishonest double standard.
In reality, instead of a logical argument, you just hate the possibility of a FE model, so you use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend their can't be FE models, while then entirely ignoring that when it comes to other models.
This application of a double standard is quite common in religions, with plenty of arguments, like the argument from causality, relying upon a double standard.
You need to have a good look at yourself, Jack. Not only have you been beaten by Timeisup who's proven you can't build a SCIENTIFIC flat earth model, but you've been beaten by me who's proven that with your flat earth data, you can't even build ANY flat earth model.
I have had a good look at myself, and I am yet beaten by either of you.
You throwing a tantrum and proclaiming that you have beaten me doesn't make it true.
The fact you still need to use this dishonest double standard and ignore what has already been provided to you and dishonestly ask for it to be provided again demonstrates this quite clearly.
If you had beaten me, you would have been able to provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for what is required for a model, and then be able to consistently apply that to things you accept to be models, and have them all pass.
Otherwise show us a photo of where you're at with your flat earth model from flat earth data, then, Jack.
And this is another common tactic used by the religious.
Because you can't substantiate your claim, you deflect and demand others prove the opposite claim true.
before i post the most likely flat earth model
And this just further demonstrates how you have entirely failed and your position is incredibly dishonest.
If there were no FE models, how could you post one?
How about you try providing a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model? That we can then apply to things you accept are models and see if they meet those requirements?