Ah, so by model - you mean a youtube video or a textbook, because there are books upon books that describe this model. I suppose you need more. If you want me to start posing the hard questions about the problems with the Earth model -I will: Starting with Gravity.
I really want you to think about this because your attitude is quite rude in general in this argument. Please just take the time to consider the problems with gravity. Science is not a dogma, but an observational study of nature.
First, weight and mass, even though they are seen to be separate, I pose that they are actually not, and this is a fallacy/and /or the Earth is Stationary.
1 - The centrifugal forces of a spinning Earth mean that there SHOULD be a difference of over 0.5% of measured weights between the equator and the North Pole, this is simply not the case in reality.
2 - The weights should also differ as we get higher and higher off of the ground, even in routine commercial flight, even in a tall skyscraper, this is simply not the case in reality.
3 - The weights should be DRASTICALLY different during a new moon at high noon, and at midnight on a new moon, not only that but we should experience LATERAL gravity during sunrise/sunset especially during new moon. This is simply not the case in reality.
4 - We should be able to measure lateral gravity, however minute, coming from large vertical objects on Earth ie mountains, this is simply not the case in reality. Especially when you consider that the Earths mass was originally calculated from the Cavendish experiment, while looking through a telescope reading measurements of lead balls apparently.
5 - It seems as though the current gravitational model only considers certain aspects of gravity, and not others - this is clear when you observe the near perfect orbit of the moon, which SHOULD be greatly affected by the gravitational pull of the Sun, but seems to only be affected by the gravity of the Earth - how can this be? The moon's orbit should be constantly making an oval pattern towards the sun, with the very soon result being either crashing into the Earth or drifting out of orbit and moving towards the Sun. Furthermore, every time the orbit of the moon crosses in front of the moving path of the Earth it should close distance more and more, as gravity is only an attractive 'force' and not a repelling force.
6 - A vessel filled with 100 grams of water and a vessel of the same size filled with 100 kg (or much, much more) of water will, when dropped from any height, make contact with the Earth's surface at the same exact millisecond, this is reality. So now if we compare this to say, the Earth and Moon, or any other two bodies of differing weight, we should see the same effect - and this simple observation alone is enough to make a thinking man reconsider gravitational theory. The Suns pull should have the same effect on the Earth as say - Jupiter, or a human, or any object, for reality tells us it is so.
7 - A bullet fired horizontal from a gun and a bullet dropped from the same height will touch the surface of the Earth at the same millisecond, although in two different places, this is reality. So we see that speed has no effect whatsoever on gravitational pull. This then, as well as above ideas, debunks Newton's cannon - the premise that an object, the faster it moves, the weaker gravity becomes upon it.
8 - This is the big one and this alone should really cause you and all readers to pause for a while and reflect on it. Orbits have NEVER been created in any circumstance on Earth. Meaning if I have a big old gymnasium - there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in gravitational theory that says if I place an large lead ball in one corner of the Gym, and in the center place a lead ball 81 times the weight of the one in the corner (ie the weight difference of the Earth and Moon), and proceed to roll the smaller lead ball in the direction of a closest corner, again - there is NOTHING in gravitation theory that says that the smaller ball should display an attraction towards the larger ball. According to the model that ties the whole of the universe together - the smaller ball should show a tendency to orbit the larger ball - of course this is a hypothetical gymnasium, so you can instead visualize this in, say, the salt flats of Bolivia. It really doesn't matter where or how, the point is - in gravitational theory, all objects of mass should be attracted to all other objects of mass - and this is painfully obviously not the case as an orbit has NEVER been shown here on Earth. Really - in gravity theory - a cotton ball thrown sideways across your face should orbit your body on its path downward to the Earth - especially in a vacuum - of course this is ridiculous.
I have not called you names - nor have I insulted your intelligence during this comment in any way. I did not copy paste anything here or even reference any outside information while I was typing this. I ask that you be civil, and ponder these ideas, give me what retort you come up with. I don't see science as black or white. I do not think some youtuber has the working model of the Earth, but what I am putting forth here is that, when you say the Globe's workings are bullet proof , I strongly disagree, and this is just one topic, and I am just skimming this one topic. There are many stupid ideas concerning the Flat Earth, but it takes bravery to tackle the stupid ideas that the military (NASA) and the educational system have installed to gracefully into our minds. I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the nature of reality, and anyone who can make this claim I suspect is not practicing science in any sense.
Cheers.
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.