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

Flat Earth Model

Accompanying text:

Purpose of the Model

With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.  Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.

The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?

…

that’s just impossible and NOT scientific.

So by your logic, the Geocentric Model is impossible and NOT scientific.

A simple yes or no will surfice.

Or are you going to continue to dodge and not answer.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 18, 2022, 12:56:44 AM

that’s just impossible and NOT scientific.

So by your logic, the Geocentric Model is impossible and NOT scientific.

A simple yes or no will surfice.

Or are you going to continue to dodge and not answer.

Yep.  Geocentrists in the 21st century aren’t quite as ludicrous as flat earthers, but they are of a similar vein.  Ditto for young earth creationists, btw.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 18, 2022, 12:56:44 AM

that’s just impossible and NOT scientific.

So by your logic, the Geocentric Model is impossible and NOT scientific.

A simple yes or no will surfice.

Or are you going to continue to dodge and not answer.

If you want to try and dishonestly misquote me it just demonstrates just how dishonest you are.

If you want the truth this is what I said about that question irrelevant though it is:-

While one could argue up to a point the Geocentric model in its day was valid even it did not believe in the notion of a flat earth even back then at least that fiction was confined to the bin. When looking back so many years it’s difficult if not impossible to put our modern mindset back to that of someone who lived almost 2000 years ago. The fact that christianity and its own belief in the  Geocentric model could be argued to have held back science for over a 1000 years could be argued. The fact that Galileo was imprisoned for challenging the geocentric belief and the fact that the Inquisition kept a close eye on who said what certainly could be said to have kept scientists quiet, as did the the report delivered by the Qualifiers that made any alternate view being put forward a difficult proposition. The church ruled despite scientific evidence that the spherical earth was the centre of the universe, of ,in their view, the centre of gods creation. This model was held in place not by science but by belief.  As belief is not inherently scientific it could be argued that the Geocentric model ceased being based on science and was instead help in place by dogma and belief.

Now you.

Do you consider Flat Earth belief to be scientific?

A simple yes or no will surfice.

Or are you going to continue to dodge and not answer.

Just to inject some science rather than opinion into the issue around the minimum size of viable main sequence stars.

According to Jack Blockhead the 32 mile diameter FE sun, which he considers scientific, can support nuclear fusion reactions. This claim is of course NOT science and NOT true and according to the astronomy experts in this field the smallest known star OGLE-TR-112b is just slightly larger than Jupiter  and around 70,000 Km in diameter. A figure far more than the 32 miles or 51Km claimed by Jack Blockhead.

OGLE-TR-122b's mass is close to the lowest possible mass for a hydrogen-fusing star, estimated to be around 0.07 or 0.08 solar masses.

This proves categorically that Jack Blockhead was wrong when he claimed this:-

"And suggesting the sun is something else, too small to undergo nuclear fusion, doesn't require a rewrite of any of those laws."

He is clearly wrong as there is no way according to the current laws of physics that a small sun 32 miles or 51 Km in diameter could support  nuclear fusion. Like all things Flat Earth its not science and its just not possible. Fantasy yes science a resounding NO.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 18, 2022, 12:56:44 AM

that’s just impossible and NOT scientific.

So by your logic, the Geocentric Model is impossible and NOT scientific.

A simple yes or no will surfice.

Or are you going to continue to dodge and not answer.

Just a follow on.

If you are talking about the recent relaunch of Geocentrism via the book Geocentrism 101 An Introduction into the Science of Geocentric Cosmology. That is a bunch of crap and pure pseudoscience just like Flat Earth belief.

Quote from: Stash on December 17, 2022, 12:48:14 PM

Flat Earth Model

Accompanying text:

Purpose of the Model

With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.  Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.

The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?

…

Yeah, I know, it was built by Walter Bilson, great site. Cool demos, calculators and decidedly Glob Earth. Been using it for years.
Point being, using FE concepts, especially "bendy light", he created a flat earth model that replicates everything from Day/Night to Equinoxes. Incorrectly, of course, but a model nonetheless.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 06:40:14 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 17, 2022, 12:48:14 PM

Flat Earth Model

Accompanying text:

Purpose of the Model

With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.  Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.

The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?

…

Yeah, I know, it was built by Walter Bilson, great site. Cool demos, calculators and decidedly Glob Earth. Been using it for years.
Point being, using FE concepts, especially "bendy light", he created a flat earth model that replicates everything from Day/Night to Equinoxes. Incorrectly, of course, but a model nonetheless.

And Tolkien created a nice map of Middle Earth. And your point is?

Quote from: Stash on December 18, 2022, 11:23:13 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 06:40:14 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 17, 2022, 12:48:14 PM

Flat Earth Model

Accompanying text:

Purpose of the Model

With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.  Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.

The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?

…

Yeah, I know, it was built by Walter Bilson, great site. Cool demos, calculators and decidedly Glob Earth. Been using it for years.
Point being, using FE concepts, especially "bendy light", he created a flat earth model that replicates everything from Day/Night to Equinoxes. Incorrectly, of course, but a model nonetheless.

And Tolkien created a nice map of Middle Earth. And your point is?

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

I believe it was Stash who posted that definition.  So you are saying  Bohr’s model isn’t a scientific model?  Otherwise provide an alternative definition.

I have only objected to that definition if it is demanded that it needs to match 100%.
I am fine with it not matching 100%.
I was objecting to this statement of yours:

Flat Earth excludes itself by being demonstrably wrong.

If Flat Earth hasn’t been comprehensively falsified, then nothing has or conceivable could be.

The Bohr model is demonstrably wrong. It has been falsified.

Does that mean it isn't a model?

Because either that requirement excludes both FE models and the Bohr model (and countless other models).
Or that requirement is wrong and should be ignored.

Hang on.  You’ve spent this entire time saying models don’t have to be based on evidence.  Why are you asking about evidence here?

No, I said they don't need to match all known evidence.

A model in general doesn't need to have any evidence at all to support it.
But a scientific model should be based upon at least some observation, some evidence.

If you find it too confusing to use the real Bohr for this example, let’s replace him with a fictional character “Bore”

No.
That would entirely defeat the point of using him.
Bohr is used because the Bohr model of the atom fails these requirements put forward to try and fail the possibility of FE models.

It is used to demonstrate that these ideas that attempt to exclude the possibility of FE models are not correct, as them being correct would exclude the Bohr model, yet no one putting forward these requirements seems willing to reject the Bohr model as not a scientific model.

So no, lets stick to the Bohr model.

I’ve never said you can’t make hypothetical models to test.

You said that FE excludes itself [from science] by being demonstrably wrong.
You also said:

No, I’m taking the stance that flat earth models are not scientific models

But the issue is that the model comes before testing, as you need to test the model.
The model failing the test doesn't mean it isn't a scientific model.

And now we’re back to being motivated by conspiracy theory, not science.

Not trusting all the available evidence doesn't require a conspiracy.

No.  They knew light exhibited wave like properties, and they knew there was no sign of a medium.

"No sign of a medium" is just an appeal to ignorance.
No sign of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Especially with regards to light as there was plenty about it which previously they had no evidence for why they then did have evidence for.

The "evidence" for the medium was that light was a wave, with every other known wave having a medium.
Suggesting light doesn't have a medium goes again all that established knowledge.

They tested different ideas because they knew that observations weren’t fully explained by theories at the time.

This comes down to what you mean by "fully explained". There were certainly some convoluted explanations for aether.
I would say more they started from scratch with a particle model, which also had issues.
They tried something new, rather than just following what was already established and trying to force it to work.
Similar to FEers, thinking that something doesn't work with a RE, and then investigating with a different idea.

Of course they are free to do this, but it’s vastly more likely they will waste their lives trying to reinvent the wheel, as opposed to making a contribution to science by “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

And that is there choice to make.

You appear to be promoting a kind of individualism in science, where people just rely on their own work.  If that’s how science worked in general there would be no more progress.

No, I'm not.
That is just like homophobic bigots claiming that anyone who is speaking out against their homophobic bigotry is promoting homosexuality.
I am not suggesting this is how people should be doing it.
I am just saying it is possible.

How would they have even known there were problems with both wave and particle models if they weren’t familiar with how those models worked and the observations that contradicted them?

Who says they need to be aware that there were problems with both?
Why couldn't it be that they either conducted some observations themselves, or knew of observations, and that led them to conclude that light is a wave and a particle.

“Trip him up” like trying to define approximations of curvature over short distances to flat as “FE models” knowing full well that’s not what he’s talking about.

Considering what he was saying, including falsely claiming that all observations should show Earth is round, I wouldn't call that trying to trip him up.

Why the fuck are you telling me you think Timeisup is a “delusional cultist” anyway?

Because you decided to come here and object to it.
If you didn't want to have people explain why, you shouldn't have objected to it.

Like I said, if you want to stay out of it, then just stay out of it.
But don't try declaring we are wrong, and then being surprised when we explain why we aren't.

I was staying out of it.  That’s why I ignored it the first time

Quoting it, just to say "dismissed" is not staying out of it.
Staying out of it would be not saying it at all.

Just look at the post chain.
Boydster pointed out a part of Timmy's post you appeared to overlook, without suggesting he is a cultist or deluded or a moron or anything like that.
And how do you respond?

Sorry, but despite your efforts to persuade me that Timeisup is some kind of religious cultist and an immense moron, I can’t really see anything substantially wrong with his response.

That is not staying out of it.

If you want to stay out of it, then stay out of.
Don't bother responding to anything said regarding it, don't bother trying to claim he isn't.
As that will just result in more responses.

I have addressed this, multiple times.  You might not agree with what I say, but stop accusing me of refusing to address it.

You have not addressed it in a way that actually addresses the claims regarding why there can't be FE models vs the application of this claim to the Bohr model.

e.g. you declared that FE rules itself out because it is demonstrably wrong.
The Bohr model is demonstrably wrong, yet you don't say it rules itself out because of this.

Bohr was working in an area of science where much was unexplained (it still is), where other models had obvious problems.  He devised a model that worked well for hydrogen.

And still had obvious problems.
It only "predicted" what was already known and used to make the model.

Do you really not see a difference?

Again, stop acting like I don't see a difference.
Seeing a difference does not mean that the lame excuses given for why their can't be FE models magically don't apply just as well to the Bohr model.

To date you have claimed that FE belief is scientific.
Now YOU are saying that all of physics is false.

How about instead of just boldly claiming lies about me, you provide direct quotes?

Claiming that FE belief is based on science is the most idiotic and inherently unscientific statement there can be for the reasons I have given in that they wipe away everything.

No where near as idiotic and unscientific as claiming there can be no FE models.

Especially as you still refuse to justify your claim.

You honestly think that Blockhead? Science would not agree with you, just like I don't agree with you.

Do you mean do I honestly think your entirely moronic, delusional BS is not true?
Of course I don't think your BS is true.
I would have to be a moron to think that.

Jack Blockhead claims the 32 miles is scientific and I say is pseudoscience rubbish! That is quite some stupid statement that only goes to prove he will say anything, any nonsense rather than admit he is wrong.

You mean it demonstrates just how dishonest you are.
How you are willing to outright lie to pretend that your delusional cult is correct.

Its physics and reality that says he is wrong and not I. Here is the physics here is the facts relating to main sequence stars.

No, it is you.
You are the one claiming a close sun must mean that several laws of physics must be re-written.
Because you want to pretend that that would mean the sun is a tiny main sequence star.
And you insist on repeating this dishonest BS after I explained that if FEers suggest the sun is something else.

So after I directly sate that it doesn't apply if they say the sun is something else, you immediately resort to describing it as a main sequence star.
Great job showing your dishonesty yet again.

"And suggesting the sun is something else"
It is impossible given the current laws of physics for a main sequence star to be only 32 miles in diameter!

I wonder, maybe that is why I said SOMETHNG ELSE?
Truly dishonest and truly pathetic.

If you want to try and dishonestly misquote me it just demonstrates just how dishonest you are.

Taking a portion of your statement, directly quoting it, with a link back to the post, and not substantially changing the meaning, is not misquoting you, nor dishonest.
Conversely, you entirely fabricating quotes and claiming people have said them is incredibly dishonest.
Given how many times you have done that, you really shouldn't be objecting to alleged misquoting.

See, this is an example of actual blatant dishonesty by you:

According to Jack Blockhead the 32 mile diameter FE sun, which he considers scientific, can support nuclear fusion reactions.

This is you blatantly lying about what someone has said.
This is you fabricating a claim, to construct a strawman, to attack, to pretend you are correct, because you can't rationally and honestly respond to what was actually said.
This is what I actually said:

And suggesting the sun is something else, too small to undergo nuclear fusion, doesn't require a rewrite of any of those laws.

I clearly suggest the sun is something else (other than a main sequence star), that doesn't undergo nuclear fusion, and how do you respond?
By blatantly lying by falsely claiming I am claiming it is a small main sequence star which undergoes nuclear fusion.

So take your accusations of dishonesty, and direct them towards yourself.

While one could argue up to a point the Geocentric model in its day was valid

Why?
Was it correct in the day?
No. It was just as wrong and just impossible then as it is now.

Now again, where are your requirements which exclude the FE but not the Bohr model?
Time and additional knowledge has not changed that.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 18, 2022, 12:36:57 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 18, 2022, 11:23:13 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 06:40:14 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 17, 2022, 12:48:14 PM

Flat Earth Model

Accompanying text:

Purpose of the Model

With the Flat Earth Dome Model I intended to show, that the geometric and physical aspects of celestial events and observations, in contrast to cyclic time events, can only be derived from the Heliocentric model.  Further the model shows that the observations can only be explained by strong light bending.

The basic idea behind the model is: The Flat Earth is a projection of the 3D Globe onto a flat plane. What if we project 3D space with Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars onto the Flat Earth Dome in the same manner? What is the relation between the bodies on the dome and observers on the flat earth? How have I to bend the light from the objects on the dome to the observer to match observations?

…

Yeah, I know, it was built by Walter Bilson, great site. Cool demos, calculators and decidedly Glob Earth. Been using it for years.
Point being, using FE concepts, especially "bendy light", he created a flat earth model that replicates everything from Day/Night to Equinoxes. Incorrectly, of course, but a model nonetheless.

And Tolkien created a nice map of Middle Earth. And your point is?

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

Scientific! What makes you think that!

So Blockhead is now saying this:-

“I clearly suggest the sun is something else (other than a main sequence star), that doesn't undergo nuclear fusion, and how do you respond?
By blatantly lying by falsely claiming I am claiming it is a small main sequence star which undergoes nuclear fusion.”

Fact 1 According to science our sun is a main sequence star. How can it magically become something else!

You obviously  think otherwise!

So what are you suggesting it is? And what is your proof? And what’s your suggested revolutionary unknown to science method of energy production, as fusion at such a tiny size by the know laws of physics is impossible.

You are truly ridiculous.

Fact 1 According to science our sun is a main sequence star. How can it magically become something else!

Again, if this is the level of BS you want to stoop to, then:
Fact 1. The electron in an atom can only be fully described by quantum mechanics. It is not a simple small particle orbiting the atom at a fixed distance from the nucleus.
Considering how much you seem to love the Bohr model, you clearly think otherwise, outright rejecting science making your position in no way scientific.

If you want to go down that route, just stick to the much simpler option, Earth isn't flat, how can it magically become flat?

You obviously  think otherwise!

And more dishonest BS.
Where did I say I think otherwise?
Yet again, because you can't refute what I have said, and you can't handle being wrong, you just happily spout whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you are right.

You are truly ridiculous, and incredibly dishonest.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

I believe it was Stash who posted that definition.  So you are saying  Bohr’s model isn’t a scientific model?  Otherwise provide an alternative definition.

I have only objected to that definition if it is demanded that it needs to match 100%.
I am fine with it not matching 100%.

I thought I made it quite clear that I do not. I even questioned why you appeared to be talking about it in such absolute terms.

It’s you that keeps saying that if I consider flat earth models to not be based on science that I must consider Bohr’s atom to be not based on science.  So how about you stop tell me how my reasoning must work and explain to me how you rate Bohr’s atom and flat models on the scale of science / not science?

I was objecting to this statement of yours:

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 16, 2022, 06:26:23 AM

Flat Earth excludes itself by being demonstrably wrong.

If Flat Earth hasn’t been comprehensively falsified, then nothing has or conceivable could be.

The Bohr model is demonstrably wrong. It has been falsified.

Does that mean it isn't a model?

Because either that requirement excludes both FE models and the Bohr model (and countless other models).
Or that requirement is wrong and should be ignored.

That’s right, the Bohr model has been falsified.  It didn’t even take very long.

It was a decent enough scientific model when it was proposed, but now it’s obsolete (except as a teaching aid to introduce some basic concepts).

As far as I’m aware nobody is now claiming that it’s what atoms really are, as people do with flat earth.  There aren’t tens of thousands of YouTube videos by charlatans claiming Bohr’s atom is da troof.  There is no Bohr’s atom society.

And I have never said there can’t be flat earth models.  I have said many times it’s entirely possible to create a hypothetical flat earth model.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

Hang on.  You’ve spent this entire time saying models don’t have to be based on evidence.  Why are you asking about evidence here?

No, I said they don't need to match all known evidence.

A model in general doesn't need to have any evidence at all to support it.
But a scientific model should be based upon at least some observation, some evidence.

Which my fictional example did.  As it allows different states of matter.  Just like when you gave your example of a flat earth model which only considered a tiny subset of observations.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

If you find it too confusing to use the real Bohr for this example, let’s replace him with a fictional character “Bore”

No.
That would entirely defeat the point of using him.
Bohr is used because the Bohr model of the atom fails these requirements put forward to try and fail the possibility of FE models.

Using Bohr as an example is entirely your thing.  Why shouldn’t I propose my own examples to explain my position?

It is used to demonstrate that these ideas that attempt to exclude the possibility of FE models are not correct, as them being correct would exclude the Bohr model, yet no one putting forward these requirements seems willing to reject the Bohr model as not a scientific model.

So no, lets stick to the Bohr model.

Again, I treat Stash’s definition as general principles, not a rigid set of requirements.  I don’t need to know exactly where the dividing line between left wing and right wing politics lies to identify Marxism as left wing.  Similarly I don’t need to know exactly where the line is to conclude if something is obviously not grounded in science. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

I’ve never said you can’t make hypothetical models to test.

You said that FE excludes itself [from science] by being demonstrably wrong.
You also said:

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 12, 2022, 04:45:04 PM

No, I’m taking the stance that flat earth models are not scientific models

But the issue is that the model comes before testing, as you need to test the model.
The model failing the test doesn't mean it isn't a scientific model.

And I’ve also said that the issue comes when you present your “scientific model” to the public, therefore opening yourself up to scrutiny.  Flat earth models should never get through someone’s internal testing.  It would be like a company releasing a video game riddled with bugs that should have been picked up during QA… oh, wait.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

And now we’re back to being motivated by conspiracy theory, not science.

Not trusting all the available evidence doesn't require a conspiracy.

Depends on the extent you do that.  We are taking about flat earth, remember.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

No.  They knew light exhibited wave like properties, and they knew there was no sign of a medium.

"No sign of a medium" is just an appeal to ignorance.
No sign of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Especially with regards to light as there was plenty about it which previously they had no evidence for why they then did have evidence for.

The "evidence" for the medium was that light was a wave, with every other known wave having a medium.
Suggesting light doesn't have a medium goes again all that established knowledge.

OK, no evidence of a medium was found.  Whatever.  It became clear that “established knowledge” was having trouble explaining observations and so scientists looked at new theories.

Not the case with the shape of earth.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

They tested different ideas because they knew that observations weren’t fully explained by theories at the time.

This comes down to what you mean by "fully explained". There were certainly some convoluted explanations for aether.
I would say more they started from scratch with a particle model, which also had issues.
They tried something new, rather than just following what was already established and trying to force it to work.
Similar to FEers, thinking that something doesn't work with a RE, and then investigating with a different idea.

Because flat earthers either don’t understand or want to understand the evidence that shows the earth isn’t flat, or they deliberately lie about it for money.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

Of course they are free to do this, but it’s vastly more likely they will waste their lives trying to reinvent the wheel, as opposed to making a contribution to science by “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

And that is there choice to make.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

You appear to be promoting a kind of individualism in science, where people just rely on their own work.  If that’s how science worked in general there would be no more progress.

No, I'm not.
That is just like homophobic bigots claiming that anyone who is speaking out against their homophobic bigotry is promoting homosexuality.
I am not suggesting this is how people should be doing it.
I am just saying it is possible.

Oooh.  Fun analogy.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

How would they have even known there were problems with both wave and particle models if they weren’t familiar with how those models worked and the observations that contradicted them?

Who says they need to be aware that there were problems with both?
Why couldn't it be that they either conducted some observations themselves, or knew of observations, and that led them to conclude that light is a wave and a particle.

Well it didn’t happen like that, did it?

What exactly are you trying to say?  That if scientists were more like flat earthers, they’d make discoveries sooner?

Just look at the post chain.

Other things were also said, which I believe justified my response. 

If you want to stay out of it, then stay out of.

Nobody’s perfect.  It would be much easier if people stop giving me their interpretations of other posters arguments.  That’s all I have to say about this now.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

I have addressed this, multiple times.  You might not agree with what I say, but stop accusing me of refusing to address it.

You have not addressed it in a way that actually addresses the claims regarding why there can't be FE models vs the application of this claim to the Bohr model.

How many times do I have to say this, liar?

YOU CAN MAKE HYPOTHETICAL FLAT EARTH MODELS.

You literally quoted me saying so in the same post.  So stop lying, you big fat liar.  (You were warned).

e.g. you declared that FE rules itself out because it is demonstrably wrong.
The Bohr model is demonstrably wrong, yet you don't say it rules itself out because of this.

Flat Earth rules itself of contemporary science because of how overwhelmingly falsified it’s been.  People are more than welcome to make their little flat earth models, but they will all be demonstrably wrong.

Bohr’s model has also been falsified and is now considered obsolete.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

Bohr was working in an area of science where much was unexplained (it still is), where other models had obvious problems.  He devised a model that worked well for hydrogen.

And still had obvious problems.
It only "predicted" what was already known and used to make the model.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 18, 2022, 03:43:39 AM

Do you really not see a difference?

Again, stop acting like I don't see a difference.
Seeing a difference does not mean that the lame excuses given for why their can't be FE models magically don't apply just as well to the Bohr model.

Stop misrepresenting what I say then, and explain what YOU think about Bohr’s atom, flat earth and their place in science, then.

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

I too have been asking for a working scientific model.

Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model is not a "working scientific model". 

He admits that himself:
     But if you assume light bending as shown in my model, it can really produce the images that
     we observe to a certain extent, if you don't look too close into it. Exceptions are Solar and
     Lunar eclipses for example

So, no.  It is not a working scientific model any more than this...

...is a working scientific model of a vessel that could withstand the most horrific seas ever.

Surely you're not suggesting that creationist science isn't really science?  I'm shocked.

I thought I made it quite clear that I do not. I even questioned why you appeared to be talking about it in such absolute terms.

And I made it quite clear that I do not think it needs to be in such absolute terms, and that if someone did try to suggest that, it means the Bohr model wouldn't match, and that if you don't take it in absolute terms it doesn't exclude the possibility of FE models.

It’s you that keeps saying that if I consider flat earth models to not be based on science that I must consider Bohr’s atom to be not based on science.  So how about you stop tell me how my reasoning must work and explain to me how you rate Bohr’s atom and flat models on the scale of science / not science?

Pretty sure that is already clear from what I have said.
The Bohr model is a scientific model, even though it is wrong, even though it was known to be wrong at the time it was made; and at the very least it is hypothetically possible to have a model of a FE which is a scientific model.

That’s right, the Bohr model has been falsified.  It didn’t even take very long.

Yes, no time at all is not very long.
It was falsified with data that existed at the time it was created.

And I have never said there can’t be flat earth models.

No, you just then turn around and claim it isn't scientific, using arguments that apply equally well to the Bohr model.
(And again, how it is being used doesn't change if it is a model or not. If someone was to use Bohr's model and claim that is how the atom actually is, that doesn't magically stop the Bohr model being a scientific model).

Which my fictional example did.  As it allows different states of matter.  Just like when you gave your example of a flat earth model which only considered a tiny subset of observations.

That was stated, with no explanation from the model.
How are different states of matter explained by the model?

Using Bohr as an example is entirely your thing.  Why shouldn’t I propose my own examples to explain my position?

It is just skirting around the issue.
The Bohr model is raised because it matches the criteria you try to use to dismiss FE models.
Bringing up a different hypothetical model, which also uses the same criteria that would work on the Bohr model doesn't address why this criteria should be considered valid.

Again, I treat Stash’s definition as general principles

Again, this was not brought up this time because of Stash's position.
It was brought up by your statement of FE excluding itself because it is demonstrably wrong.
The Bohr model was demonstrably wrong when it was made.

I don’t need to know exactly where the dividing line between left wing and right wing politics lies to identify Marxism as left wing.

But you do need to have some qualifiers, some set of criteria which can be used to demonstrate something is or is not left wing or right wing.
Yes, some things will be ambiguous.
But if you give something as a requirement which would exclude something from being left wing, then anything which matches that cannot be left wing.

Otherwise, you can arbitrarily deem anything to be left wing or right wing.

And I’ve also said that the issue comes when you present your “scientific model” to the public, therefore opening yourself up to scrutiny.  Flat earth models should never get through someone’s internal testing.  It would be like a company releasing a video game riddled with bugs that should have been picked up during QA… oh, wait.

That is entirely personal preference.
People are free to release their model at any stage, even the hypothesis stage before it is tested.

OK, no evidence of a medium was found.  Whatever.  It became clear that “established knowledge” was having trouble explaining observations and so scientists looked at new theories.

And if they didn't cling to what was already known we could have had them looking into new ideas much earlier, rather than trying to bestow upon aether such contradictory properties.

Well it didn’t happen like that, did it?
What exactly are you trying to say?  That if scientists were more like flat earthers, they’d make discoveries sooner?

Other things were also said, which I believe justified my response.

Like what?
Boydster responded to you pointing out something you appeared to overlooked. No indication in that post (or any prior post from Boydster directed to you) that you should think Timmy is a deluded cultist.
The closes you get is this:

If I'm mistaken, and you just mean the models you are currently aware of fail but there could exist models that don't, we're in agreement at that point, and should also be in agreement that Timmy's rampant posting about how "tHeRe CaN bE nO fLaT eArTh MoDeL BeCaUsE sCiEnCe!!" is patently wrong and just noise that he is spamming all over the forum.

So unless you were also trying to respond to me in that post, and even then it is a stretch, it is you bringing it up. So don't be surprised when others respond to it.

How many times do I have to say this, liar?

As many until you can remain consistent and actually address the issue raised.

Saying you can make hypothetical FE models, while saying there is nothing substantially wrong with Timmy's claim (which is that there cannot be FE models), and that the FE excludes itself by being demonstrably wrong, will not help your case.

The only possible way you can try to justify that my statement was a lie if you wish to go down the very thing you spoke against, pedantic point scoring by saying I left out the word "scientific".

The simple fact is that you are doing whatever you can to avoid the issue. The arguments you are using against the FE (excluding the entirely irrelevant ones about its use), apply to the Bohr model as well.

If the FE is excluded for demonstrably wrong, then Bohr is excluded for being demonstrably wrong.
If the FE is excluded for being falsified, then Bohr is excluded for being falsified.
Neither of these rely upon data obtained after the Bohr model was made.
These statements were true of the Bohr model when it was made.

So why should these arguments be accepted against the FE models but not the Bohr model?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

I thought I made it quite clear that I do not. I even questioned why you appeared to be talking about it in such absolute terms.

And I made it quite clear that I do not think it needs to be in such absolute terms, and that if someone did try to suggest that, it means the Bohr model wouldn't match, and that if you don't take it in absolute terms it doesn't exclude the possibility of FE models.

Disagree.  The amount of evidence against a flat earth is so vastly overwhelming, in so many ways that I don’t consider it based on science.  Including direct observations of the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

It’s you that keeps saying that if I consider flat earth models to not be based on science that I must consider Bohr’s atom to be not based on science.  So how about you stop tell me how my reasoning must work and explain to me how you rate Bohr’s atom and flat models on the scale of science / not science?

Pretty sure that is already clear from what I have said.
The Bohr model is a scientific model, even though it is wrong, even though it was known to be wrong at the time it was made; and at the very least it is hypothetically possible to have a model of a FE which is a scientific model.

I’ll believe that when I see one.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

That’s right, the Bohr model has been falsified.  It didn’t even take very long.

Yes, no time at all is not very long.
It was falsified with data that existed at the time it was created.

Furthermore any physicist using a hundred year old model today had better have a damn good reason for disregarding everything that’s been learnt since.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

And I have never said there can’t be flat earth models.

No, you just then turn around and claim it isn't scientific, using arguments that apply equally well to the Bohr model.
(And again, how it is being used doesn't change if it is a model or not. If someone was to use Bohr's model and claim that is how the atom actually is, that doesn't magically stop the Bohr model being a scientific model).

Well they don’t apply equally if we don’t take the definition as needing to be 100% do they?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

Which my fictional example did.  As it allows different states of matter.  Just like when you gave your example of a flat earth model which only considered a tiny subset of observations.

That was stated, with no explanation from the model.
How are different states of matter explained by the model?

Let’s say there’s a certain amount of internal energy needed to reach a phase change threshold.  It really doesn’t matter, it’s not even a actual model.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

Using Bohr as an example is entirely your thing.  Why shouldn’t I propose my own examples to explain my position?

It is just skirting around the issue.
The Bohr model is raised because it matches the criteria you try to use to dismiss FE models.
Bringing up a different hypothetical model, which also uses the same criteria that would work on the Bohr model doesn't address why this criteria should be considered valid.

My example gets a lot closer to flat earth models in how much it ignores and how much it fails to explain.

As we’ve established, the criteria I’m using are not absolute requirements, so the extent by which a model fails to meet any of them isn’t skirting around the issue, it’s the whole damn point.

Are you getting it yet?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

Again, I treat Stash’s definition as general principles

Again, this was not brought up this time because of Stash's position.
It was brought up by your statement of FE excluding itself because it is demonstrably wrong.
The Bohr model was demonstrably wrong when it was made.

What the hell are you talking about?  I broadly agree with the definition Stash provided, so how can my opinion not be based on how I think it works  “this time”?

Bohr’s model was demonstrably wrong to a far lesser extent than flat earth, but it explained things other models couldn’t very well.  So it gets a pass from me in being scientific at the time.  Unlike flat earth which is a hot mess of useless nonsense.

Because I regard that definition as general principles not as a rigid set of requirements.  It’s not all or nothing and it depends on the circumstances.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

I don’t need to know exactly where the dividing line between left wing and right wing politics lies to identify Marxism as left wing.

But you do need to have some qualifiers, some set of criteria which can be used to demonstrate something is or is not left wing or right wing.
Yes, some things will be ambiguous.
But if you give something as a requirement which would exclude something from being left wing, then anything which matches that cannot be left wing.

Otherwise, you can arbitrarily deem anything to be left wing or right wing.

You mean like the definition Stash provided?  Crazy idea at this point in the conversation I know!

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

And I’ve also said that the issue comes when you present your “scientific model” to the public, therefore opening yourself up to scrutiny.  Flat earth models should never get through someone’s internal testing.  It would be like a company releasing a video game riddled with bugs that should have been picked up during QA… oh, wait.

That is entirely personal preference.
People are free to release their model at any stage, even the hypothesis stage before it is tested.

And I am free to regard it as unscientific tosh.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

OK, no evidence of a medium was found.  Whatever.  It became clear that “established knowledge” was having trouble explaining observations and so scientists looked at new theories.

And if they didn't cling to what was already known we could have had them looking into new ideas much earlier, rather than trying to bestow upon aether such contradictory properties.

No doubt you would have had it all sorted in no time.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

Other things were also said, which I believe justified my response.

Like what?
Boydster responded to you pointing out something you appeared to overlooked. No indication in that post (or any prior post from Boydster directed to you) that you should think Timmy is a deluded cultist.
The closes you get is this:

Quote from: boydster on December 13, 2022, 11:59:28 AM

If I'm mistaken, and you just mean the models you are currently aware of fail but there could exist models that don't, we're in agreement at that point, and should also be in agreement that Timmy's rampant posting about how "tHeRe CaN bE nO fLaT eArTh MoDeL BeCaUsE sCiEnCe!!" is patently wrong and just noise that he is spamming all over the forum.

So unless you were also trying to respond to me in that post, and even then it is a stretch, it is you bringing it up. So don't be surprised when others respond to it.

Interesting.  Seems someone decided that some language wasn’t very helpful after all.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

How many times do I have to say this, liar?

As many until you can remain consistent and actually address the issue raised.

I HAVE ADDRESSED EVERY POINT YOU HAVE MADE.

Multiple times in many cases, because you keep repeating the same damn things.  You don’t agree with my position so you claim that my answers don’t address the issues.  It’s really tiresome.

Saying you can make hypothetical FE models, while saying there is nothing substantially wrong with Timmy's claim (which is that there cannot be FE models), and that the FE excludes itself by being demonstrably wrong, will not help your case.

I said I didn’t see anything  substantially wrong with his reply to me.  I didn’t exactly agree with everything, and I’m not about to trawl through every post he’s ever made.  I just don’t care enough about your little feud.

The only possible way you can try to justify that my statement was a lie if you wish to go down the very thing you spoke against, pedantic point scoring by saying I left out the word "scientific".

Being scientific or not is the whole point.  A hypothetical model of a flat earth is entirely possible, but show me that model and claim it’s a good scientifically based representation of the earth, and I will laugh at you.

The simple fact is that you are doing whatever you can to avoid the issue. The arguments you are using against the FE (excluding the entirely irrelevant ones about its use), apply to the Bohr model as well.

Explained above.  Explained so many times.  Hint: not a 100% requirement.

Here’s another option- you are completely incapable of considering that I could possibly have a valid opinion that doesn’t exactly match yours.  And so whatever I say is “avoiding the issue” and my opinions are “irrelevant” until I agree with you.  Or much more likely get sick of this shit and stop posting.

If the FE is excluded for demonstrably wrong, then Bohr is excluded for being demonstrably wrong.
If the FE is excluded for being falsified, then Bohr is excluded for being falsified.
Neither of these rely upon data obtained after the Bohr model was made.
These statements were true of the Bohr model when it was made.

So why should these arguments be accepted against the FE models but not the Bohr model?

Gee.  I wonder if it could have something to do with not seeing some criteria in absolute terms? 

Being scientific or not is the whole point.  A hypothetical model of a flat earth is entirely possible, but show me that model and claim it’s a good scientifically based representation of the earth, and I will laugh at you.

What is a good scientifically based representation?

Are you implying that the model must be accurate to be scientific.

Quote from: Stash on December 18, 2022, 01:09:59 PM

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

I too have been asking for a working scientific model.

Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model is not a "working scientific model". 

He admits that himself:
     But if you assume light bending as shown in my model, it can really produce the images that
     we observe to a certain extent, if you don't look too close into it. Exceptions are Solar and
     Lunar eclipses for example

It's a working model based upon FE hypotheses as to the way they perceive stuff works, like light. We know it doesn't work in reality, but it's still a "functioning" model, for FE constructs.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:21:41 PM

Being scientific or not is the whole point.  A hypothetical model of a flat earth is entirely possible, but show me that model and claim it’s a good scientifically based representation of the earth, and I will laugh at you.

What is a good scientifically based representation?

Are you implying that the model must be accurate to be scientific.

No. I’m saying it should be based on observations, use scientific reasoning and be able to make testable predictions.  It doesn’t need to do be perfect, but it needs to make a decent attempt.

Helps if it’s not physically impossible.

Quote from: ecco on December 19, 2022, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 18, 2022, 01:09:59 PM

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

I too have been asking for a working scientific model.

Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model is not a "working scientific model". 

He admits that himself:
     But if you assume light bending as shown in my model, it can really produce the images that
     we observe to a certain extent, if you don't look too close into it. Exceptions are Solar and
     Lunar eclipses for example

It's a working model based upon FE hypotheses as to the way they perceive stuff works, like light. We know it doesn't work in reality, but it's still a "functioning" model, for FE constructs.

Very fundamentally, no.

As explained on the site, this model is entirely based on the heliocentric model being projected onto a flat earth and a dome.  Apart from all the problems Walter identified (and I think I spotted a few more), the only predictive power this model has comes from the heliocentric model.

It’s a fun little model to show some of the things that an actual flat earth model might try to explain, but makes no attempt to do so. 

Can we just all agree that arguing over which definitional nuances hold makes for fundamentally futile discussion?

Scientific models can be wrong, can fail to offer explanations for certain things, and can be flawed. That's because science is a process, not taken as unquestionable.
FET makes testable predictions, and draws on interpretations of certain observations.

Scientific models are supported by a tremendous weight of evidence, and can be rejected in light of new evidence, and when they leave something unexplained it tends to be an ever-shrinking number of things.
FET's tests fail or are encompassed by RET, and FE views ignore more observations that they explain.

There's a spectrum here and you're just arbitrarily marking out a point on the spectrum and saying that's what a model is and anything before it is insufficient. You're using different definitions. All your arguing proves is that your different definitions are not the same.
Language is used to communicate ideas. The use of the term 'model' is more often than not irrelevant to any scientific notion, and just a convenient term to refer to the beliefs that FEers hold without needing to resort to something unnecessarily wordy or insulting and just make dialogue even harder. ('Hypothesis' falls in the latter camp, it's a relic of when we had these exact same debates over saying 'theory' and this discussion is just as tedious and meaningless now as it was then. The word 'model' is a concession)

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 19, 2022, 04:40:55 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 19, 2022, 04:21:41 PM

Being scientific or not is the whole point.  A hypothetical model of a flat earth is entirely possible, but show me that model and claim it’s a good scientifically based representation of the earth, and I will laugh at you.

What is a good scientifically based representation?

Are you implying that the model must be accurate to be scientific.

No. I’m saying it should be based on observations, use scientific reasoning and be able to make testable predictions.  It doesn’t need to do be perfect, but it needs to make a decent attempt.

Helps if it’s not physically impossible.

There are tests and observations that can be performed scientifically where the results don't exclude FE.

Quote from: Stash on December 19, 2022, 06:07:08 PM

Quote from: ecco on December 19, 2022, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: Stash on December 18, 2022, 01:09:59 PM

It's a working scientific model. Which is what you've been looking for, right?

I too have been asking for a working scientific model.

Bislin's Flat Earth Dome Model is not a "working scientific model". 

He admits that himself:
     But if you assume light bending as shown in my model, it can really produce the images that
     we observe to a certain extent, if you don't look too close into it. Exceptions are Solar and
     Lunar eclipses for example

It's a working model based upon FE hypotheses as to the way they perceive stuff works, like light. We know it doesn't work in reality, but it's still a "functioning" model, for FE constructs.

Very fundamentally, no.

As explained on the site, this model is entirely based on the heliocentric model being projected onto a flat earth and a dome.  Apart from all the problems Walter identified (and I think I spotted a few more), the only predictive power this model has comes from the heliocentric model.

It’s a fun little model to show some of the things that an actual flat earth model might try to explain, but makes no attempt to do so.

It is based upon heliocentric properties, but Walter adds in the effects required to support an FE model, specifically, bendy light...



Which we all know is not a thing as modeled. However, the argument I've seen from FE has been, "Well, you can see the Sun after a sunset because of bendy light (refraction)" - This bit...



But again, we all know FE bendy light is an entirely different beast, is unmeasurable and would have to occur exactly the same way, 365, everywhere on earth, under every atmospheric condition. So yeah, ludicrous. Yet still a hypothesis that is baked into the model. Of course too, equinoxes are a mess in FE, Eclipses are a mess, as already mentioned, simple Night/Day is a mess in FE, the list goes on. But it's still a model, and one that can be picked apart like so many models over the years.

I don't really know why this all is such an issue when it's just simply, FE model presented, here's why FE model is incorrect. Period. 

Can we just all agree that arguing over which definitional nuances hold makes for fundamentally futile discussion?

Possibly the smartest thing anyone has said so far.

And yet…

It is based upon heliocentric properties, but Walter adds in the effects required to support an FE model, specifically, bendy light...



Which we all know is not a thing as modeled. However, the argument I've seen from FE has been, "Well, you can see the Sun after a sunset because of bendy light (refraction)" - This bit...



But again, we all know FE bendy light is an entirely different beast, is unmeasurable and would have to occur exactly the same way, 365, everywhere on earth, under every atmospheric condition. So yeah, ludicrous. Yet still a hypothesis that is baked into the model. Of course too, equinoxes are a mess in FE, Eclipses are a mess, as already mentioned, simple Night/Day is a mess in FE, the list goes on. But it's still a model, and one that can be picked apart like so many models over the years.

I don't really know why this all is such an issue when it's just simply, FE model presented, here's why FE model is incorrect. Period.

You don’t find it significant that your example of a flat earth model is fundamentally built on heliocentric calculations, as opposed to being built from the ground up using calculations based on a flat earth?

The amount of light bending to make it kind of but not really work, is an output of the model.

PS i think he was a bit sneaky with the southern star thing.

PSS He doesn’t mention what this would actually look like to an observer on the surface.

Disagree.  The amount of evidence against a flat earth is so vastly overwhelming, in so many ways that I don’t consider it based on science.  Including direct observations of the shape of the earth.

Just like the amount of evidence against the Bohr model is was so vastly overwhelming, in so many ways, that it shouldn't be considered to be based on science?
Or do you rely upon that direct observation?

Furthermore any physicist using a hundred year old model today had better have a damn good reason for disregarding everything that’s been learnt since.

Who cares about now?
Focus on when the Bohr model was made.
It was demonstrably wrong and falsified with data which existed before it was made.

Well they don’t apply equally if we don’t take the definition as needing to be 100% do they?

Yes, they do.
Because the excuse provided for why the FE models can't be scientific work for the Bohr model as well.

In both cases, they do not match 100% to the definition provided by Stash as they fail to match all the available evidence (including at the time of their creation), and fail to make correct predictions for so many things. However both match to a less than 100% amount. Both match some available evidence, and can make predictions similar to the observations used to make them.
Both are demonstrable wrong and falsified by evidence available at the time they were made.

My example gets a lot closer to flat earth models in how much it ignores and how much it fails to explain.

As we’ve established, the criteria I’m using are not absolute requirements, so the extent by which a model fails to meet any of them isn’t skirting around the issue, it’s the whole damn point.

Are you getting it yet?

Your example is an intentionally convoluted one where as much of science as possible is rejected to try and make the FE seem far worse.
I think the Bohr model is a much better comparison.

It seems to be you want to use a vague set of requirements so you can arbitrarily decide things are scientific or not based upon your own personal preferences rather than any rational basis.

What the hell are you talking about?  I broadly agree with the definition Stash provided, so how can my opinion not be based on how I think it works  “this time”?

Are you even bothering to read what you are responding to?
Again, Stash's definition only excludes FE models if you treat it as an absolute in which case it also excludes plenty of other models, including the Bohr model.
If not taken as an absolute, it doesn't exclude FE models.

What I was objecting to was your statement that FE excludes itself because it is demonstrably wrong and has been falsified.
But the same applies to the Bohr model, including when it was made.
It was demonstrably wrong and falsified when it was made.

Because I regard that definition as general principles not as a rigid set of requirements.  It’s not all or nothing and it depends on the circumstances.

i.e. as above, you use it as vague principles, so you can dismiss anything you want to, and accept anything you want to.

You mean like the definition Stash provided?  Crazy idea at this point in the conversation I know!

The definition which doesn't exclude the FE model unless you use it as an absolute at which point you also exclude the Bohr model?

I HAVE ADDRESSED EVERY POINT YOU HAVE MADE.

No, you haven't.

You want to exclude the FE because it is demonstrably wrong and has been falsified.
That applies to the Bohr model.

The ways to actually address this:
1 - Accept that this also excludes the Bohr model, which means the Bohr model is not scientific.
2 - Accept that this is wrong, and thus the FE doesn't exclude itself on that basis.
3 - Explain how the Bohr model was not demonstrably wrong and falsified (or at least by the evidence that existed when it was made).

Just entirely ignoring that statement of yours and its application to the Bohr model, and bringing up Stash's definition to say it doesn't have to match 100% to justify the Bohr model being accepted as scientific doesn't address it at all.

Being scientific or not is the whole point.

Which means my statement was not a lie and you boldly proclaiming that you have said a hypothetical model can exist to try and demonstrate it was a lie was just a deflection from the actual issue.

show me that model and claim it’s a good scientifically based representation of the earth, and I will laugh at you.

Just like everyone should have laughed at Bohr?

Explained above.  Explained so many times.  Hint: not a 100% requirement.

Hint: that means it doesn't exclude the FE, and the FE can have models which are scientific under that not 100% requirement.

No. I’m saying it should be based on observations, use scientific reasoning and be able to make testable predictions.  It doesn’t need to do be perfect, but it needs to make a decent attempt.

And none of that excludes the FE.

Helps if it’s not physically impossible.

Physically impossible in the sense of it being correct rather than going against evidence?
Or physically impossible in the sense of a square circle, something which couldn't exist in any universe?

If the former again the Bohr model is excluded.
If the latter, the FE is not.

Can we just all agree that arguing over which definitional nuances hold makes for fundamentally futile discussion?

Yes, it would be much better if people stopped trying to boldly proclaim there can't be FE models or that such models can't be scientific and instead tried focusing on what the models actually predict or indicate and what evidence is available to support the model or show it is wrong.

Quote from: Slime on December 20, 2022, 04:52:44 AM

Can we just all agree that arguing over which definitional nuances hold makes for fundamentally futile discussion?

Yes, it would be much better if people stopped trying to boldly proclaim there can't be FE models or that such models can't be scientific and instead tried focusing on what the models actually predict or indicate and what evidence is available to support the model or show it is wrong.

Oh, yeah, I'm on your side. Honestly scared by how much that's happening lately but hey, hi!

The definition of a word only matters as far as communication goes. Call FE ideas whatever the heck you want in your day-to-day life, but adopting a term you maybe dislike just to have a conversation with FEers is such a tiny ask. People that would rather kick up a fuss at the word model are the people that make FEers think we're brainwashed.

Quote from: Slime on December 20, 2022, 04:52:44 AM

Can we just all agree that arguing over which definitional nuances hold makes for fundamentally futile discussion?

Possibly the smartest thing anyone has said so far.

And yet…

Quote from: Stash on December 20, 2022, 09:51:38 AM

It is based upon heliocentric properties, but Walter adds in the effects required to support an FE model, specifically, bendy light...



Which we all know is not a thing as modeled. However, the argument I've seen from FE has been, "Well, you can see the Sun after a sunset because of bendy light (refraction)" - This bit...



But again, we all know FE bendy light is an entirely different beast, is unmeasurable and would have to occur exactly the same way, 365, everywhere on earth, under every atmospheric condition. So yeah, ludicrous. Yet still a hypothesis that is baked into the model. Of course too, equinoxes are a mess in FE, Eclipses are a mess, as already mentioned, simple Night/Day is a mess in FE, the list goes on. But it's still a model, and one that can be picked apart like so many models over the years.

I don't really know why this all is such an issue when it's just simply, FE model presented, here's why FE model is incorrect. Period.

You don’t find it significant that your example of a flat earth model is fundamentally built on heliocentric calculations, as opposed to being built from the ground up using calculations based on a flat earth?

The amount of light bending to make it kind of but not really work, is an output of the model.

PS i think he was a bit sneaky with the southern star thing.

PSS He doesn’t mention what this would actually look like to an observer on the surface.

If you mess around with the camera height slider and some other parameters, you can kinda get down to an observer on the surface. Kinda.

And yes, he uses a heliocentric gravitational model. Then conjures up how light would have to bend to achieve day/night, etc.. for FE.

Sun and moon height are based upon the loonies FE "calculations" of yore, Rowbotham, Carpenter, Blount, Voliva, all the heavy hitting maniacs. So it's all kind of a mishmash of Helio and a few fabricated FE elements.
He calculated it all somehow, but yes, it's not a straight up FE only calculation.

But to your point about, "ground up" - Is that really a requirement for a scientific model?

Going all the way back to the OP, "So, what points make this model better than the globe model, the one with one unified system on how the Earth works?"

In short, I can't think of any.