0
0

[–] 24894940? ago 

I am not sure what you mean

I mean that the video proposes a model. Do you agree or disagree that we can use the model to make predictions?

For example, the model proposes that due to refraction, the sun cannot be seen from a certain distance away. We should be able to measure that distance predict where on Earth the sun would be visible, given some position. Basically, it'll be a circle with the sun at its center, like this: https://files.catbox.moe/jju3j4.png

This is not a "gotcha" question. It's totally okay if it takes several tries to get the radius of the circle correct. The ultimate point is, the model proposed in that video is still different than the globe-earth model, and therefore we should be able to conduct an experiment that tests those differences.

But this all depends on your answer: do you agree or disagree that we can use the model to make predictions?

0
0

[–] 24898541? ago 

If I understand you correctly, then I would attempt to use that model to make a prediction. Not sure I understand you 100%, but I'm willing to look.

Thing is, so much of this flat earth stuff makes more sense than the existing model. I have enough reasonable doubt in the globe model that I prefer not to dissect 1 point. What the sun and moon are and how they function are mind puzzles.

Some other things like long distance photography and all the mistakes in the ISS video are more approachable imo.

0
0

[–] 24899427? ago 

I prefer not to dissect 1 point

Then how can you ever know if that point is really true?

Look, we can talk about this for as long as you like. When either one of us is done, we just stop replying. But it seems to me that dissecting one point is a lot more profitable than if either of us go back and forth saying "well what about this" and then linking to videos or whatever that address that thing, and then just immediately moving on to another "well what about this"

So, here's the thing: the flat earth model that we're currently talking about specifies that the sun is some distance above the flat plain of the earth, and is visible on the earth to anyone within a certain radius of it. So, it's like a spotlight circle, like this: https://files.catbox.moe/jju3j4.png

I don't know the radius of the circle, so I'm prepared to make it as large or as small as is needed to fit any observations we make. The point is, the globe earth model predicts that 1/2 of the Earth is facing the sun all the time. They map that only a mercator projection map and it looks like this: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

I can't find where they map it onto a flat earth model where Antarctica is at the periphery, and I don't have the skill to do that myself. But it seems really obvious to me that these two methods cannot possibly produce the exact same shape of light/dark. What that means is, no matter how large you make the circle, it's never going to exactly "fit" the day/night prediction of the globe earth model.

...and what that means is, we just have to find a place on Earth where one model predicts day and the other model predicts night, find someone you trust who lives there, give him a call, and ask him if it's daytime or night time.

So let's say the flat earth model predicts it should be nighttime where your friend lives. You call him up and he says it's actually day time. Okay no problem, just enlarge the circle until it's daytime where he lives. I further predict that you're going to have to make the circle quite large, and that it will therefore predict daytime for people that the globe earth model predicts are still in nighttime. So, we call one up a second person and ask him if it's day or night.

At some point, one of these models will break down.