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

Removed: Everything that’s just the same thing you’ve already said, that I have already answered.

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.

No, it’s intentionally convoluted to show where I rate FE in terms of science.

You keep telling me I should treat Bohr’s model and flat earth exactly the same way, but complained when I asked if you don’t see a difference between them.  You have so far avoided saying what difference you do see, if any.

Why don’t you clearly explain how you rate Bohr’s model and FE in terms of science instead of constantly telling me what I should think about it?

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.

Getting close, finally. 

I do see it as a vague set of requirements, as I keep saying.  Using those I can come to a personal opinion on whether I think something is scientific or not.  Just as I use a vague set of requirements to determine if think a policy is left wing or right wing.  Just as I use a vague set of requirements to determine if I think someone is an arsehole or not.

However, the lack of a fixed set of absolute criteria applied regardless of situation does not mean there’s no rational basis for my opinion.

And it is just my opinion, it’s not stopping anyone doing whatever they want.  Just as what you say is just your opinion.

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.

The latter, because a flat sphere is very much like a square circle.

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

I don’t think a scientific model of a system can fundamentally be built on the alternative model you are proposing to replace. (That isn’t actually Walter’s aim of course, so it’s fine for him to do this).  It can be built on other things you want to incorporate into the new model.

I agree with everything else you say about it, btw.

You keep telling me I should treat Bohr’s model and flat earth exactly the same way, but complained when I asked if you don’t see a difference between them.  You have so far avoided saying what difference you do see, if any.

No, I'm not saying you should treat them exactly the same.
I am just pointing out that what you use to dismiss the FE model works equally well for the Bohr model.

Quote

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.

Getting close, finally. 

I do see it as a vague set of requirements, as I keep saying.  Using those I can come to a personal opinion on whether I think something is scientific or not.

i.e. arbitrarily dismiss things you don't like, rather than having a rational basis.
There is no set of criteria you can point to that classifies the FE model as unscientific and the Bohr model as scientific, because you are not using a set of criteria to distinguish them, instead you are just arbitrarily deciding that the FE model is not scientific.

You might pretend that it is rational, but when you leave the criteria as vague allowing you to dismiss what you want and accept what you want it ceases to be rational, it loses its rational basis.
Your opinion is no more valid that someone who suggests the FE model is scientific and the Bohr model is not.

And if it is just your opinion, why kick up such a fuss about it?

Quote

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.

The latter, because a flat sphere is very much like a square circle.

Good thing the FE models do not involve a flat sphere, so it doesn't exclude the FE at all.

Quote from: Stash on December 20, 2022, 02:35:35 PM

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

I don’t think a scientific model of a system can fundamentally be built on the alternative model you are proposing to replace. (That isn’t actually Walter’s aim of course, so it’s fine for him to do this).  It can be built on other things you want to incorporate into the new model.

Sure you can, especially if you are simplifying the model.
This process is bi-directional. You can take a RE model, and map it to a FE model, and you can do the opposite, taking a FE model with bendy light, and straightening the light out to make a RE model.

Likewise, you can start with a GC model, and perform some math to produce a HC model. You don't need to start entirely from scratch.

Likewise, look at Bohr. It was built upon the Rutherford model, with the intent to replace it. The Rutherford model was built upon prior models as well.

Taking a model and building upon it to produce a better model is a common part of science.

And if it is just your opinion, why kick up such a fuss about it?

I don’t know, man.  Why don’t you tell me my opinion is wrong because of Bohr again?

Are you going to answer my question about your opinion, or what?

Taking a model and building upon it to produce a better model is a common part of science.

Sure if you take out the parts you that don’t apply to your model, and/or add new stuff.

I don’t know, man.  Why don’t you tell me my opinion is wrong because of Bohr again?

You were the one who decided to join this thread with this comment of yours:

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?

That isn't coming in stating an opinion.
That appears to be coming in to state what you think is a fact.

Perhaps if you came in and stated it as just your opinion, rather than being based upon reason, it would have went differently.

Are you going to answer my question about your opinion, or what?

Do you mean like I already have?

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.

Sure if you take out the parts you that don’t apply to your model, and/or add new stuff.

Like taking out Earth being round and adding in bendy light?

Perhaps if you came in and stated it as just your opinion, rather than being based upon reason, it would have went differently.

LOL.  I’ve explained my reasoning. I guess you missed that in replies to you I’ve repeatedly used words like “what I consider to be scientific”? 

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2022, 03:34:10 AM

Are you going to answer my question about your opinion, or what?

Do you mean like I already have?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 19, 2022, 01:39:21 PM

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.

So if you do see a difference between them as you say, it’s because FE models so far aren’t up to the same scientific standard of Bohr, hence the “hypothetically possible” part?  If so what criteria do you use to judge them?

Or should all FE models be considered scientific, because any criteria would apparently apply equally to Bohr’s, etc, etc?  In which case you really don’t see any difference?

Or you consider some FE models scientific and some not?  But again that leaves of what criteria you use to determine if they are scientific?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2022, 03:34:10 AM

Sure if you take out the parts you that don’t apply to your model, and/or add new stuff.

Like taking out Earth being round and adding in bendy light?

Not what Walter did though is it?  All the calculations of where the sun moon and stars are observed from earth are made with the heliocentric model.  This is projected onto the azimuthal map and a dome.  The bendy light is the output of the model.

How is it taking the earth being round out of the model, when it’s fundamentally built using heliocentric calculations?

Surely you’re not just going by the pretty pictures and ignoring what the model actually does?

LOL.  I’ve explained my reasoning. I guess you missed that in replies to you I’ve repeatedly used words like “what I consider to be scientific”?

Which boiled down to you using a vague set of requirements to allow you to decide things arbitrarily as your own personal opinion rather than actual reason.

So if you do see a difference between them as you say, it’s because FE models so far aren’t up to the same scientific standard of Bohr, hence the “hypothetically possible” part?  If so what criteria do you use to judge them?

Or should all FE models be considered scientific, because any criteria would apparently apply equally to Bohr’s, etc, etc?  In which case you really don’t see any difference?

Or you consider some FE models scientific and some not?  But again that leaves of what criteria you use to determine if they are scientific?

It depends upon how the modle is constructed and what it can do.
In order to be scientific it needs to be based upon observations from the real world and needs to be able to make predictions which are not simply the same as the observations used to make the model, with those predictions being testable.

The more predictive power it has (with those predictions being correct), the better the model is (although there are other factors as well, and the best model for a particular task, even among the same type of models, will not necessarily be the same, e.g. the simplicity of the Bohr model is why it is used in the introduction of atomic theory in high school, even though a full quantum mechanical treatment with complex orbitals and phase and all sorts of complex rules is more more accurate and better able to make correct predictions).

And separate to the model itself, there is the issue of how the model is used.
Someone can be using a scientific model, while being entirely unscientific themselves.
And someone can start off being scientific, producing a scientific model, and then end up being unscientific by trying to cling to an idea that just isn't working.

Quote

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 21, 2022, 03:34:10 AM

Sure if you take out the parts you that don’t apply to your model, and/or add new stuff.

Like taking out Earth being round and adding in bendy light?

Not what Walter did though is it?  All the calculations of where the sun moon and stars are observed from earth are made with the heliocentric model.  This is projected onto the azimuthal map and a dome.  The bendy light is the output of the model.

How is it taking the earth being round out of the model, when it’s fundamentally built using heliocentric calculations?

Surely you’re not just going by the pretty pictures and ignoring what the model actually does?

In the same manner that you can take observations and predictions from a GC model, and map them to a HC model, to produce the HC model from those observations.
e.g taking the observed position of the sun and the predicted positions from the GC model, as well as the observed and predicted position of stars on the celestial sphere, and mapping them to a rotation and orbit of Earth in a HC model, with the rotation and orbit of Earth an "output" of such a process.

It depends upon how the modle is constructed and what it can do.
In order to be scientific it needs to be based upon observations from the real world and needs to be able to make predictions which are not simply the same as the observations used to make the model, with those predictions being testable.

The more predictive power it has (with those predictions being correct), the better the model is (although there are other factors as well, and the best model for a particular task, even among the same type of models, will not necessarily be the same, e.g. the simplicity of the Bohr model is why it is used in the introduction of atomic theory in high school, even though a full quantum mechanical treatment with complex orbitals and phase and all sorts of complex rules is more more accurate and better able to make correct predictions).

And separate to the model itself, there is the issue of how the model is used.
Someone can be using a scientific model, while being entirely unscientific themselves.
And someone can start off being scientific, producing a scientific model, and then end up being unscientific by trying to cling to an idea that just isn't working.

.

Seem to be plenty of vague qualifiers in there- the circumstances about what the model is supposed to be showing, how it’s constructed, how it’s used, how well it predicts things, etc.  All to determine whether some are better or worse than others.  Your completely objective and rational opinion really doesn’t seem much different to my arbitrary irrational opinion. 

You’ve just decided to set the bar lower on what obvious observations can be ignored, unexplained and undefined mechanisms included, predictions made or not, etc while still calling it scientific. 

You’re shying away from saying if you think any actual flat earth models are really scientific in nature, just leaving the possibility open that someday somehow someone might be able to make one. 

Although you do  appear to be counting Walter Bislin’s as a scientific flat earth model, right?  Speaking of-

In the same manner that you can take observations and predictions from a GC model, and map them to a HC model, to produce the HC model from those observations.
e.g taking the observed position of the sun and the predicted positions from the GC model, as well as the observed and predicted position of stars on the celestial sphere, and mapping them to a rotation and orbit of Earth in a HC model, with the rotation and orbit of Earth an "output" of such a process.

Haha.  Nice try, but no.

You are talking about transforming coordinate systems between reference frames.  All the celestial sphere is is a spherical coordinate system with the observer in the middle, which is obviously a very useful thing in astronomy.

That’s clearly very different from stretching a globe onto a flat plane and the celestial sphere into a hemisphere, with the difference between the systems being the completely unexplained phenomenon of “bendy light”.

What predictions can this model make about a flat earth that aren’t entirely dependent on the heliocentric model?  That was your main criteria was it not?

Seem to be plenty of vague qualifiers in there

The distinction is that I'm not dismissing things, which allows it to be objective.

All to determine whether some are better or worse than others.

As already pointed out, it is not a simple case of better or worse than others.
Instead it is better or worse for a particular purpose.
And that will likely have some component of subjectivity, especially as different people will have different abilities to grasp different models where some may find a complex model easy to grasp and use while others prefer a simpler model.

Although you do  appear to be counting Walter Bislin’s as a scientific flat earth model, right?

Sure, why not? I would need to look into it more to fully judge it.
But it appears to be based on observations, and it appears to be able to make predictions.

Haha.  Nice try, but no.
You are talking about transforming coordinate systems between reference frames.  All the celestial sphere is is a spherical coordinate system with the observer in the middle, which is obviously a very useful thing in astronomy.

I am talking abuot mapping one model to another.
You can take a GC model, with a celestial sphere, with the sun and planets moving around that celestial sphere, and convert it into a HC model.
Yes, that just requires a reference coordinate transform, but more complex transformations are possible.

What predictions can this model make about a flat earth that aren’t entirely dependent on the heliocentric model?  That was your main criteria was it not?

The requirement was the ability to make predictions, not being able to make predictions which other models can't.

Just one question this time:

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 22, 2022, 05:59:46 AM

What predictions can this model make about a flat earth that aren’t entirely dependent on the heliocentric model?  That was your main criteria was it not?

The requirement was the ability to make predictions, not being able to make predictions which other models can't.

Are you joking with me?

Are you joking with me?

No. 2 models being able to make the same predictions doesn't mean one of them cant use those predictions to qualify for a model.

If this was the case, the intial HC models wouldn't count as models, as they weren't able to make better predictions than the GC model they were replacing.

No. 2 models being able to make the same predictions doesn't mean one of them cant use those predictions to qualify for a model.

If this was the case, the intial HC models wouldn't count as models, as they weren't able to make better predictions than the GC model they were replacing.

That is so obviously not what’s happening with this model.
- Half the map being illuminated is calculated from a spherical earth with a distant sun.
- The shape of the illuminated part changing throughout the year is calculated from the inclination of the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun over the year.
- The observed positions of the sun, moon and stars from locations on earth are similarly calculated using the heliocentric model.

The only predictions this model can make about any of these things are 100% round earth and 0% flat earth.  That surely means it fails your own criteria of making testable predictions about a flat earth.

After everything you’ve said about basing your opinion on reason it’s funny that with the only proper example given you’re just making excuses with more false equivalences.

That is so obviously not what’s happening with this model.
- Half the map being illuminated is calculated from a spherical earth with a distant sun.
- The shape of the illuminated part changing throughout the year is calculated from the inclination of the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun over the year.
- The observed positions of the sun, moon and stars from locations on earth are similarly calculated using the heliocentric model.

It is a model, with associated math, which produces these outputs, i.e. predictions, which can be tested.

Just like the early HC models would use observations from the GC model to construct the HC model.

So no, it doesn't fail the criteria for being able to make predictions.

The only predictions this model can make about any of these things are 100% round earth and 0% flat earth.

That is not a sentence that means anything. Just because one model explains an observation doesn't mean another can't

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 24, 2022, 03:25:37 AM

The only predictions this model can make about any of these things are 100% round earth and 0% flat earth.

That is not a sentence that means anything. Just because one model explains an observation doesn't mean another can't

What other model?  We’re talking about one specific model.  A model that’s fundamentally built from the  heliocentric model:

“The flat earth dome model had to be derived entirely from the heliocentric model which results are then simply projected onto the flat earth and the dome. To connect the flat earth projections with the dome projections, light must bend in a physically impossible way.“

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=--70-11.25-10-130-2307.5-30-50-20-10-5

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 24, 2022, 03:25:37 AM

That is so obviously not what’s happening with this model.
- Half the map being illuminated is calculated from a spherical earth with a distant sun.
- The shape of the illuminated part changing throughout the year is calculated from the inclination of the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun over the year.
- The observed positions of the sun, moon and stars from locations on earth are similarly calculated using the heliocentric model.

It is a model, with associated math, which produces these outputs, i.e. predictions, which can be tested.

Just like the early HC models would use observations from the GC model to construct the HC model.

So no, it doesn't fail the criteria for being able to make predictions.

The exact same false equivalence repeated again.  Any reason why you can’t just evaluate the model on what it does?

Walter even explains in some detail the differences between cyclical observations which could be predicted by a flat earth model and the geometric and physical predictions that cannot. 

Quote from: Slime on December 24, 2022, 03:20:14 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 24, 2022, 03:25:37 AM

The only predictions this model can make about any of these things are 100% round earth and 0% flat earth.

That is not a sentence that means anything. Just because one model explains an observation doesn't mean another can't

What other model?  We’re talking about one specific model.  A model that’s fundamentally built from the  heliocentric model:

“The flat earth dome model had to be derived entirely from the heliocentric model which results are then simply projected onto the flat earth and the dome. To connect the flat earth projections with the dome projections, light must bend in a physically impossible way.“

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=--70-11.25-10-130-2307.5-30-50-20-10-5

Quote from: JackBlack on December 24, 2022, 02:18:06 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 24, 2022, 03:25:37 AM

That is so obviously not what’s happening with this model.
- Half the map being illuminated is calculated from a spherical earth with a distant sun.
- The shape of the illuminated part changing throughout the year is calculated from the inclination of the earth’s tilt as it orbits the sun over the year.
- The observed positions of the sun, moon and stars from locations on earth are similarly calculated using the heliocentric model.

It is a model, with associated math, which produces these outputs, i.e. predictions, which can be tested.

Just like the early HC models would use observations from the GC model to construct the HC model.

So no, it doesn't fail the criteria for being able to make predictions.

The exact same false equivalence repeated again.  Any reason why you can’t just evaluate the model on what it does?

Walter even explains in some detail the differences between cyclical observations which could be predicted by a flat earth model and the geometric and physical predictions that cannot.

What?

How the hell is the flat earth model a derived model from the Heliocentric model?

That literally doesn't make sense.

I've never seen an FE model that wasn't Geocentric.

Read the description maybe?

Quote from: Slime on December 24, 2022, 03:20:14 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 24, 2022, 03:25:37 AM

The only predictions this model can make about any of these things are 100% round earth and 0% flat earth.

That is not a sentence that means anything. Just because one model explains an observation doesn't mean another can't

What other model?  We’re talking about one specific model.  A model that’s fundamentally built from the  heliocentric model:

“The flat earth dome model had to be derived entirely from the heliocentric model which results are then simply projected onto the flat earth and the dome. To connect the flat earth projections with the dome projections, light must bend in a physically impossible way.“

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=--70-11.25-10-130-2307.5-30-50-20-10-5

Does the way a viewpoint was derived significantly affect the metric of how you analyse it, on scientific terms? That seems a weird stance to take. if the idea of mass attracting mass came to someone in a dream, would that significantly alter how you'd test its predictions?
You're giving a physical description of properties of one FE map. basically, you're offering a description of what would need to be explained. That makes no claims about whether such explanations can or have been offered, beyond perhaps "Light would move differently," but that seems to be more a test than an inherent reason to reject. The test would be what matters.

Does the way a viewpoint was derived significantly affect the metric of how you analyse it, on scientific terms? That seems a weird stance to take. if the idea of mass attracting mass came to someone in a dream, would that significantly alter how you'd test its predictions?
You're giving a physical description of properties of one FE map. basically, you're offering a description of what would need to be explained. That makes no claims about whether such explanations can or have been offered, beyond perhaps "Light would move differently," but that seems to be more a test than an inherent reason to reject. The test would be what matters.

It’s not about where the idea came from, it’s about whether there are equations, parameters, etc to test against observations.

The laws of gravitation and motion can be used to mathematically describe the orbits of objects in the solar system, allowing predictions to be made to test against observations.

That’s not the case with either the motion of the sun and moon in this flat earth model or the way light light must bend to make observations (sort of) work. 

The exact same false equivalence repeated again.  Any reason why you can’t just evaluate the model on what it does?

You mean the same true equivalence.

I am evaluating the model on what it does.
It is a FE model which predicts the apparent location of the sun, the region of Earth that is illuminated and so on.

Quote from: Slime on December 26, 2022, 02:54:04 PM

Does the way a viewpoint was derived significantly affect the metric of how you analyse it, on scientific terms? That seems a weird stance to take. if the idea of mass attracting mass came to someone in a dream, would that significantly alter how you'd test its predictions?
You're giving a physical description of properties of one FE map. basically, you're offering a description of what would need to be explained. That makes no claims about whether such explanations can or have been offered, beyond perhaps "Light would move differently," but that seems to be more a test than an inherent reason to reject. The test would be what matters.

It’s not about where the idea came from, it’s about whether there are equations, parameters, etc to test against observations.

The laws of gravitation and motion can be used to mathematically describe the orbits of objects in the solar system, allowing predictions to be made to test against observations.

That’s not the case with either the motion of the sun and moon in this flat earth model or the way light light must bend to make observations (sort of) work.

So if it's not about ultimate origin, but about the actual properties, and you have those actual properties measured, what does your issue come down to?
"Some details of this model are unexplained," can never be the same as "This model cannot be explained." That's a dodgy direction to go down.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 26, 2022, 12:36:07 PM

The exact same false equivalence repeated again.  Any reason why you can’t just evaluate the model on what it does?

You mean the same true equivalence.

I am evaluating the model on what it does.
It is a FE model which predicts the apparent location of the sun, the region of Earth that is illuminated and so on.

The Heliocentric model predicts these things.  The results are simply plotted on a polar azimuthal equidistant map projection. 

Do you imagine that any data set plotted on a 2D map is a “flat earth model”?

So if it's not about ultimate origin, but about the actual properties, and you have those actual properties measured, what does your issue come down to?
"Some details of this model are unexplained," can never be the same as "This model cannot be explained." That's a dodgy direction to go down.

It comes down to whether the predictions are being made by a flat earth model or a heliocentric round earth model. ie the calculations of geometric and/or physical properties. 

Do you imagine that any data set plotted on a 2D map is a “flat earth model”?

Do you imagine that this is not a FE model designed to show what is needed for a FE to work to demonstrate just how absurd the FE is?

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 26, 2022, 11:22:11 PM

Do you imagine that any data set plotted on a 2D map is a “flat earth model”?

Do you imagine that this is not a FE model designed to show what is needed for a FE to work to demonstrate just how absurd the FE is?

That’s very much what I’ve been saying.  The point you have been arguing with.

The model is unable to make predictions based on flat earth geometry or physical mechanisms.  It makes such predictions using the heliocentric model and plots the discrepancy. 

That’s very much what I’ve been saying.  The point you have been arguing with.

The model is unable to make predictions based on flat earth geometry or physical mechanisms.  It makes such predictions using the heliocentric model and plots the discrepancy.

I would say it is distinct to what you were saying before.
You seemed to object to the idea of this making predictions, not if it is a FE model.


Walter certainly presents it as  FE model. Even labelling it quite explicitly on their site:
"Flat Earth Dome Model."

Here is an interactive Flat Earth Model that can explain Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon's apparent rotation, Sun's position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day/Night at the Northpole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, why people south of the equator can see the same Stars rotate clockwise around a singe celestial pole at the same time at different continents.

They certainly seem to be presenting it as a FE model.

And if you read the purpose you will see that you seem to have completely missed the point of that question:

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?

Note that although the Dome itself may be 3D, it only represents a 2D surface. Of course applying the known physical laws of light propagation, on the Flat Earth we would see a completely different imgage of reality than we can observe. Sun, Moon and Stars on the Dome never go physically below the horizon. So you have to invent things like the Flat Earth Perspective, which does not work as needed either.

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. Although you can predict the dates of this events, like the ancient astronomers could by observing the sky, but you can not predict the locations on earth, where this events happen. They can only be seen on certain locations and times, which we can only predict using the Heliocentric model.

Sure, I completely missed the point of all the things I’ve been saying the last couple of pages.

The point I’ve been making is the need to distinguish between predictions made with a heliocentric round earth model and a model that make predictions using flat earth geometry and/or mechanisms.  You’ve been saying that they are basically interchangeable.

Quote from: Slime on December 26, 2022, 04:08:52 PM

So if it's not about ultimate origin, but about the actual properties, and you have those actual properties measured, what does your issue come down to?
"Some details of this model are unexplained," can never be the same as "This model cannot be explained." That's a dodgy direction to go down.

It comes down to whether the predictions are being made by a flat earth model or a heliocentric round earth model. ie the calculations of geometric and/or physical properties.

I don't think predictions are the best road to go down here - that implies a lack of pre-existing knowledge, while what this is talking about, is specifically known behaviours. In essence, this comes down to "Are all observations explained?"
To which the answer is 'no,' regardless of your model. You can always tug on a thread to the point that we end up at a mystery, that's the fascinating and frustrating thing about any kind of inquiry. WHat you do get to is that, in the present moment, RET has successful explanations for significantly more than FET, but there is no possible way to rule out potential FE explanations.

Sure, I completely missed the point of all the things I’ve been saying the last couple of pages.

Do you even bother reading what you are responding to?

I said you missed the point of the question, referring to the question I asked which you quoted and responded to, i.e. this one:
"Do you imagine that this is not a FE model designed to show what is needed for a FE to work to demonstrate just how absurd the FE is?"

That is pretty much the entire point of that FE model.

Yet you want to say it is just a HC model presented in a strange way.

The point I’ve been making is the need to distinguish between predictions made with a heliocentric round earth model and a model that make predictions using flat earth geometry and/or mechanisms.  You’ve been saying that they are basically interchangeable.

Why appeal to just predictions made with a HC model, but then change to geometry and mechanisms for the FE model?
This FE model has bendy light as part of it.
This mechanism explains the observed position of celestial objects.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 27, 2022, 05:20:18 AM

Sure, I completely missed the point of all the things I’ve been saying the last couple of pages.

Do you even bother reading what you are responding to?

I said you missed the point of the question, referring to the question I asked which you quoted and responded to, i.e. this one:
"Do you imagine that this is not a FE model designed to show what is needed for a FE to work to demonstrate just how absurd the FE is?"

That is pretty much the entire point of that FE model.

Yes, that is the point of the model.

But you have been acting like this is quite inconsequential:

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

When that is also a fundamental part of the model.  His model has 3 basic stages:

1. Calculate the observed positions of Sun, moon and stars
2. Map the spherical earth from this model to azimuthal map and the celestial sphere to a dome.
3. Work out how much light would have to bend to make it kind of work.

Any predictions of where the terminator lies for example is entirely a prediction from the heliocentric model. 

Yet you want to say it is just a HC model presented in a strange way.

Up until he joins the dots with bendy light, that’s pretty much what it is.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 27, 2022, 05:20:18 AM

The point I’ve been making is the need to distinguish between predictions made with a heliocentric round earth model and a model that make predictions using flat earth geometry and/or mechanisms.  You’ve been saying that they are basically interchangeable.

Why appeal to just predictions made with a HC model, but then change to geometry and mechanisms for the FE model?
This FE model has bendy light as part of it.
This mechanism explains the observed position of celestial objects.

The amount of bendy light to make it kind of work is entirely derived from the HC model.  That’s the point. 

There’s no mechanism for bendy light in this model that can make any predictions without first getting the “right” answer directly from the HC model.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 27, 2022, 12:38:51 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 27, 2022, 05:20:18 AM

Sure, I completely missed the point of all the things I’ve been saying the last couple of pages.

Do you even bother reading what you are responding to?

I said you missed the point of the question, referring to the question I asked which you quoted and responded to, i.e. this one:
"Do you imagine that this is not a FE model designed to show what is needed for a FE to work to demonstrate just how absurd the FE is?"

That is pretty much the entire point of that FE model.

Yes, that is the point of the model.

But you have been acting like this is quite inconsequential

Considering one of the first things I said in this thread was:

A model or map of something which is fictional can be useful for demonstrating it is fictional.
e.g. you can create a model of the FE, to show this model can't be describing reality, and with a comprehensive enough set of models, you can demonstrate that FE can't be describing reality.

I think I understand that point quite well, and don't think it is inconsequential at all.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a model.

So is it a FE model designed to show the problem with the FE, or is it not a FE model, and is just a HC model, which in no way says anything about the FE as it is not a FE model?

The amount of bendy light to make it kind of work is entirely derived from the HC model.

Considering the HC model doesn't have bendy light, it most certainly is not.
More importantly, it is derived from observations on Earth. Where certain locations see celestial objects in certain positions at certain times.
The math for this is quite simple in a RE model, but nothing precludes the FEers using similar calculations.

Just like most objects on the celestial sphere, if you want simple calculations, you can treat that sphere as a fixed sphere centred on Earth, with Earth rotating on its axis, or Earth fixed with it rotating.
That is clearly not a HC calculation, but that doesn't mean the HC model can't use it?

Because if you do want to be that pedantic, then guess what?
It isn't a HC model at all. It is a GC model.
It uses a GC model of a celestial sphere. The sun and moon move along this celestial sphere, and the celestial sphere rotates around Earth.

Just what part of that model do you think is HC and uses HC calculations?

There’s no mechanism for bendy light in this model that can make any predictions without first getting the “right” answer directly from the HC model.

Or without getting the right answer from observations from Earth and plotting them on a FE map. Then seeing how that varies over time, to make predictions for each location.