Changing the topic so fast? By MODEL, I mean a MODEL. If you do not understand what a model is, you might want to research it. Perhaps take a university level science course and they can explain it to you.
Hmm, all of that wall of text and NOTHING proving that the flat earth can even explain, let alone predict eclipses or any of the natural phenomenon we see in reality. Good job with the cult tactics of changing the subject and going off on long tangents that simply prove you reject the globe model without the slightest bit of understanding of it , but all I want is a model of the flat earth that predicts events that ARE already predicted.
I'll wait for you to explain and predict eclipses using a flat earth model. You've had all of human history to figure it out. Perhaps the Chinese model that you can show us?
I did explain, and you have now shown yourself to not be someone capable of rational thinking or debate. You demand an end all be all theory in the form of a to scale model fed to you on a silver spoon; I have said in so many words, that I DO NOT have such a model to provide you, however, there are resources available to you to develop any such model, and there are even youtube models that are available to you, but I do not support these as they make many assumptions, and I do not wish to make assumptions, it's counter to my nature. What I also pointed out is that the model that YOU cling to is so riddled with holes that simply because it predicts the same phenomenon that the Mayans were able to does not make it a sound theory, by any stretch. Since you refuse to even consider the many points I made above, I will deduce that you have nothing to further add to this debate. I believe in rational thought and debate, you believe in dogma - and you declare me to be of a cult mindset? How odd.
Another debate over before it starts. Goodbye.
You did? I see no model nor explanation of any precise predictive model of flat earth. All I see is a wall filled with things you do not understand about the globe, so you reject them; and the desperate attempt to change the subject from your belief system's complete lack of ability to explain anything at all while still demanding that it's the true and correct model of reality.
When there is a model that explains and precisely predicts virtually every natural phenomenon you see around you, and you reject it for a failed hypothesis that explains nothing and does not even have a testable model, well, that shows an irrational belief system and not a rationally thought out tested theory.
Go ahead and get back to me when you have a testable hypothesis.
Last comment: Your model - as I have lengthily shown does NOT explain the core tenet of its operational system: the gravitational orbit theory - hence an irrational belief system - I actually put forth no belief system, instead express the fallacy of the accepted model. I really don't think you understand the basic ideas I am putting forth so again, last comment. Farewell.
Weird that it PRECISELY predicts dozens of events, even thousands of years in advanced, despite it's fatal flaws even of it's core tenet! Very strange.
Usually, even a slight problem in a theory, particularly a core tenet, would disrupt future predictions making them wrong and useless. I guess it will remain a mystery how such a fatally flawed model can produce such precise explanations and predictions.
Also strange that such a xenophobic society as the Chinese were at the time so readily adopted the fatally flawed globe model, and did not cling to their precise one that overcame all of the fatal flaws you say the globe has.
I guess it's another mystery.
Still waiting on this model of flat earth that overcomes all of this and explains and predicts all the natural phenomenon we see in reality. You DID say that Chinese had this. Their records were not destroyed so it should be a snap to have this info and recreate this precise flat earth predictive model they had.
You even said it's readily available for ME to create the model. So why have flat earthers not done such a thing and recreate this precise predictive model the Chinese had, but instead just produce ridiculous models with no basis in reality whatsoever?
Another mystery.
By the way, admitting you have no model means that you do not even have a testable hypothesis! So, I appreciate the candor and will await the day when you do.