It is YOUR job to present a transparent and usable model and observations to back that model up. The Round Earth model is YOUR claim.
No, it is your job to challenge the null hypothesis with testable hypotheses and predictions of your own.
Which is the null hypothesis? The one:
- ...with the fewest untestable assertions immune to disproof.
- ...with the fewest appeals to magical mechanisms (Celestial Gears, The Firmament, etc.).
- ...with the fewest appeals to enormous, global, hundred-years cover-up conspiracies.
- ...with the fewest ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away problems with other ad-hoc hypotheses, rather than just addressing the flaws in the earlier ad-hoc hypotheses
- ...with the least complicated, least hand-wavy explanations to explain observed phenomenon.
- ...with the fewest appeals authority
- ...with the fewest religious elements, e.g. the sacred ancient texts of the con-man/religious figure Rowbotham.
- ...based on the fewest unfalsifiable assertions.
- ...with the most exceedingly well-defined, easily testable details at every level - including shapes and relationships of landmasses down to the meter; the masses, distances, and orbital state vectors of every visible object in the solar system, much of which can be easily observationally verified with a Nikon P900, a logbook, and patience.
- ...And by definition - right or wrong - the one that is overwhelming accepted as the best working theory by the scientific and academic community. Sometimes changing the world is hard work and unfair. So stop whining, accept the world for the way it is rather than complain about it, and get to it!
Since you can't even submit a simple
map of even the most roughly approximated size, shape, and relationships of landmasses - to
any admitted degree of accuracy - that pretty much rules yours out as the null hypothesis.
Since you use "we" alot, I'm going to lump "you" into "you all": You can't even agree on whether there are two celestial poles instead of one. Dome, or no dome. Antarctica is an ice wall, or continent. The Pacific Ocean surrounds the world, or is just a big ocean. Antarctica is as big as Africa, or as big as Australians think it is. That NZ spends half the year in total darkness, or not. That there is more oceans and continents
beyond the ice wall (including Atlantis), or not. Whether there is gravity, or UA.
Etc. Sorry. The RE model is exceedingly internally consistent, extremely detailed and highly specific, every aspect of it is testable, and no part of it is immune to disproof. To suggest it isn't the null hypothesis, is to appear mentally ill. I know you don't believe RE is the null hypothesis. (And via transitive property...)
I'm not suggesting that the RE model is right. I mean I do, elsewhere, but that's not my argument here. It's only to point out that the burden of proof is on FE. (I wouldn't be here if a FE wasn't a fun notion to entertain - I'm certainly not hear to convert the unconvertible. I'm open to conversion.)
RE has a
map of the landmasses, shapes, distances, and relationship of whatever it is we live on. A map that can be tested, debated, have holes poked in it, disproven. That is the basis to move forward from, nothing else really matters until you have that.
You don't have that. You don't even have a
map.