The question is: How is this possible using an incorrect model of the shape of the earth?
The idea is to not use a model of Earth and instead make a prediction based upon a repeating cycle.
You recommended that there’s a link between being able to predict the occurrence of eclipses and the commonly accepted mainline science model of the earth.
Not merely being able to predict occurrences, but predict the path of totality to a great deal of accuracy, which relies upon knowing where the objects are.
I don’t know nearly enough about these events to contribute with any exhaustive detail.
Then maybe you shouldn't be making such definitive statements.
However, as I’ve already mentioned, in order to predict something we’d need to be able to observe/detect it for sometime. we’d need to observe that it does not act at random but is rather predictable.
Or they need to understand what contributes to it to make a prediction based upon that.
e.g. observations of the moon and sun, and the understanding of how the sun, Earth and moon move relative to each other allows one to predict times where they will be in alignment to produce an eclipse and predict that eclipse.
The do not need to notice a pattern in eclipses to do that.
There was an eclipse recently. I didn’t see the moon 🌙.
Firstly, what do you even mean by that?
A solar eclipse or a lunar eclipse? If a solar eclipse, just what were you expecting to see of the new moon. What did you see?
Furthermore, there no evidence that any scientist needs to factor in their belief that the earth is a ball to make an accurate prediction of an eclipse event.
Have you even tried looking for that evidence?
Again, I don’t know enough about this phenomenon. But it’s clear to me
Again, if you don't know enough, then it can't be clear to you.
But to entertain your question. No, the midnight sun does not occur at the outer-reaches of the earth. The days are short, and get shorter the further south you travel.
Except during the southern summer, where the opposite occurs, and the days get longer the further south you travel.
Something not possible in your fantasy.
Observing that the sun is small and local is something almost anyone can do on a clear day.
Actually, observing the exact opposite is something almost anyone can do on a clear day with a solar filter to cut down the glare; where they observe the sun remain roughly the same size throughout the day. Something which shouldn't happen if it was close.
You’re refusing the possibility of a deception when deception is a legitimate possibility.
I wouldn't call it a legitimate possibility. I would call it a desperate reach to try to reject reality.
24 hour sun does happen in the artic when the sun is close and over cancer. It does not happen in the outer-reaches (Antarctica). That’s the flat earth model.
The FE model that fails to match reality.
There is no globe earth. The flat earth is observable by anyone who cares to look.
Again, quite the opposite. If you honestly look, the evidence of curvature is clear.
Observing the sun is a good place to start.
Watch it’s size throughout the day.
And make sure you are watching the actual size of the sun rather than the size of the glare, which can vary dramatically depending on conditions.
And you will observe it remain roughly the same size throughout the day.
Because of how hard it is to get rid of glare without an appropriate filter, the moon is a better candidate.
There have been two eclipse events within the last ten years and I hadn’t seen a new moon either time.
Again, what are you expecting to see?
Do you know what a new moon looks like?
What’s more interesting is observing the “sunset” from elevation over the Pacific Ocean. If the Sea is calm, and the sky is clear, you’ll notice the sun will not disappear beyond the horizon but rather shrinks in size above the horizon until it disappears.
No, you won't notice it shrink. You might notice the glare appear to shrink, but the sun itself wont.
As for seeing it set, that depends upon how calm it is and if there is layers of distortion near the horizon. If it is calm enough, you do see it set, with Earth blocking the view.
I haven’t confirmed with my own photography. However, I have dug up enough videos.
So what you are saying is your objection to the idea of "trust me bro" only matters when it contradicts what you believe.
When it is what you believe, you happily accept it, ignoring any possibility of deception.
This is not a clear day.
There is quite obviously low clouds there obstructing the view.
But even then, you still don't see the sun appear as a point and then get larger.
Instead, it rises from behind the cloud cover, appearing as a thin line as the top starts poking out.
So it isn't even a matter of trust. It is a matter of you seeing what you want to see rather than honestly examining it.
And again, lots of cloud cover, and again, the sun doesn't appear as a point and grow, it rises from behind the clouds.