. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You can believe all this and much more magical stuff, yet cannot accept say gravitation that has been demonstrated by hundreds of measurements! You know something, I will stick to something simple like the globe earth!
Yet I have seen Flat Earthers (maybe not you) call Newton an Alchemist - really you need some witches and wizards to explain the magic needed in any flat earth model and that is before having no map to show the true shape, dimensions and location of the continents!
Come off it! I prefer to keep away from all the magic needed to explain the flat earth! A lot of the problem is that so few flat earthers take the trouble to find out how their own "model" really works (or doesn't)!
What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe. Long before we were somehow launching satellites into deep space and maintaining their course, or sending humans through massive belts of radiation to land on the moon and take perfectly framed photographs for us, it was only the movements of the celestial bodies that led people to adopt the globe model. And it wasn't instantaneously accepted, or precisely matching what we observe. It took concessions like Earth being tilted on an axis, its heliocentric orbit elliptical, our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe, and pseudo-scientific forces like universal gravitation to hold the model together.
You say: "
What you fail to account for is the things that are predicted by a globe earth, are the very things they used to predict that the Earth was a globe.", but a lot of the things I mention are
simple things like sunrise, sunset times and directions - anyone can check them!
A small question! However would
you or anyone have known about these
"massive belts of radiation" or the
thermosphere if earlier
space probes and satellites had not been launched to measure them? Answers from YOU please! NASA knew a lot more about the Van Allen belts than you ever will, and launch the moon missions on an off-ecliptic path to avoid as much as possible!
Whyever are these thing
concessions? They are simple a part of the structure of the solar system.
You really take no notice of any explanations that I give! You still come up with "
our moon spinning the opposite direction around the earth than we observe", yet I have tried to explain that the apparent rotation of the sun and moon are mainly the earth's rotation.
And you still come up with "
pseudo-scientific forces like
universal gravitation to hold the model together"! You have never tried to answer what
Cavendish et. al. measured with the hundreds of experiments performed! You still cannot say why gravitation is
pseudo-scientific when magnetic and electrostatic forces are real - what gives?
Many of the things I listed I can observe with my own observations.
A "dyed in the wool" flat earther asked "It is
baffling at times to understand just how REers can go on and on expressing their beliefs
without opening their eyes and seeing what is past their text books and out the door of their lab".
I do keep my eyes open and what do I see?
- The Earth looks flat - it does, it's big!
- On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
- The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
- The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
- Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
- The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
- The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - have travelled for this observation).
- The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
Note that none of this is direct evidence of a rotating earth, but
I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!
I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.
Of these, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just
takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble
explaining away all of the others with
fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by "dark energy") and on and on.
But all the other points are far
more simply explained on a Globe Earth, though not necessarily rotating. The Heliocentric Globe model came from much more detailed study of the motions of the planets. Mind a bit of logic would show that it would be strange to have all of the sun, moon, planets and stars moving (not simply rotating) about a comparitively small earth - and that is before we bring Einstein into it!
There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about
strange things like celestial gears and aetheric whirlpools etc.
Even the problems with the stationary Globe earth were found in the past from observations made without modern instruments.
Largely eyes and simple (though large) angle measuring equipment.Honestly, I find that
the Globe Earth conforms far better to the Zetetic approach than all the imagination and guesswork needed to support any Flat Earth model!
I guess there's no more that I can say. It's all up to you, but sometimes you really do have to look around you, look a bit more deeply into the various "models" (especially the complications you get into with any flat earth models) and start believing (though selectively!) what others have learnt from their investigations. As I said though you do have to be selective - there is a lot of rubbish out there.