No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.
Ooh. That's a bit slippery.
That would be fair enough if you had a coherent model but Tom has said that there isn't a model. He says that there's not enough investment for FE research and you don't have the resources.
But that means that whatever objection we present you can say we are objecting to a different model to the model you believe in.
If you're going to play fair you should at least present the model you DO believe in so people can comment on it.
And I guess the you is singular there if you (plural) don't have an agreed model
I'm intrigued at what other geometry you think works on a flat plane. If the earth is flat then it can be modelled by a 2d surface, yes, no?
If no then...what?! I'd like you to elaborate on where that reasoning falls down.
If yes then...OK. So let's say we have a piece of paper which I hope we can agree is a 2D surface which we will use to represent the whole earth.
London is somewhere on that surface, it has an X and Y co-ordinate. So does New York. So does Sydney. And so on.
You will find that if you start with a blank piece of paper and try and plot the locations of those cities starting with one arbitrarily and using the round earth distances between them then you will be unable to. This is why RE says that there is no flat earth map which can work, ergo the earth is not flat.
So either...
1) You don't accept the distances as given by the RE model
2) You reject the whole premise of modelling the earth by a flat plane like a piece of paper.
Or both. If 2 then how would you model it? If 1 then what is your basis for rejecting those distances? I've said above why I believe there is good evidence for them.