Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
Hahaha, yes - things have measurements. A foot is twelve inches.
Let's briefly summarize why you and I agree that a foot is twelve inches. Humans created the unit called an inch. We decided on its specific size. This unit is the same worldwide. Every human can empirically test this measurement, and validate that 12 inches does indeed equal one foot.
Now I hand you an issue of Time magazine. They're celebrating how beautiful circles can be. One page shows a picture of a circle painted onto textureless white canvas. How big is the circle?
You can see it, right? You can measure it on the page of the magazine, right? Maybe put your thumb up to it, measure how many thumbs it is across, your thumb's distance to the page, etc. You can even write a formula about what you're seeing, and solve for X, right? That's all wonderful.
In reality, the only way we'll find out how big this specific circle is, is if we find the original painting and physically measure the circle on the canvas.
I'll say it once more - we cannot possibly measure the sun, in distance or diameter, without assumptions. This means we're taking a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. And if you factor in physics that involve empirical evidence, your guess isn't quite as good as mine, because the sun behaves like a heat lamp, planes wouldn't be able to operate on a rotating ball, we'd be able to measure the Earth's many simultaneous movements through space, we'd be able to measure the curve, gravity would be measurable, etc. Yet none of that is true. It is absolutely mindblowing when you dig, and you find out just how much of the Heliocentric model is founded on something measurable. Something empirical. Something repeatable. Absolutely none of it.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction. Refraction and gravity magically solve nearly every problem in their model. It's like zoom->enhance in CSI Miami.
How do orbits work? Gravity.
Wouldn't the planets pull on each other as distances between them change, and knock orbiting all out-of-whack? No. Why? Because gravity.
How do we not feel the orbiting of the Earth as we change speeds around an ellipse? Gravity. But, we're accelerating and decelerating; couldn't we measure that? No. Why? Gravity.
How does water stick to a rotating ball? Gravity.
How does gas near space ignore the second law of thermodynamics? Gravity.
How do planes catch up to the spinning earth? Gravity.
Why can we see so far? Refraction. But... refraction wouldn't work like that. Yes it would. No, it wouldn't - prove it! We can't.
Why do we see rays of light coming in at different angles all over the world, if all rays are supposedly parallel? Refraction.
How does radar work from 100 miles away on a sphere? No explanation, but we'll assume it's a combination of refraction and gravity.
Why don't submarines see curvature on the bottom of the ocean, as they're able to scan for hundreds of miles? Same as above.
How does the Earth cause an eclipse on the moon, when both the moon and the sun are visible in the same sky? Refraction.
How do we see the same set of stars in the sky at night in January and June, if we're facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Distance, probably gravity, maybe a dash of refraction.
How do wireless point-to-point communication systems work on a sphere? Gravity + refraction. But that's not possible!
There's so much else. And yes, there are silly formulas to solve for that attempt to explain much of this. But saying 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns doesn't prove unicorns.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.
Present data aside, things have measurements. No matter what you want to say about current state of science as it is it doesn't change the fact that a foot is 12 inches. The sun must have a measurement in size, and I'm at a loss as to how big it would be to make the flat earth model work.
How do you figure we can't measure these things? is it impossible to measure force? I don't believe that to be true.
Based on my observation, there is nothing that can confirm that the earth is flat either. I wrote several reasons why in my last comment.
Another big one is a flight from the tip of south america to australia. If we are to assume the flat earth model to be true, then there is no way a flight could make that trip in one go. And yet it does, every single day. Objective observation means this cannot happen in a flat earth model, unless you've been able to find an explanation for that?
Hahaha, yes - things have measurements. A foot is twelve inches.
Let's briefly summarize why you and I agree that a foot is twelve inches. Humans created the unit called an inch. We decided on its specific size. This unit is the same worldwide. Every human can empirically test this measurement, and validate that 12 inches does indeed equal one foot.
Now I hand you an issue of Time magazine. They're celebrating how beautiful circles can be. One page shows a picture of a circle painted onto textureless white canvas. How big is the circle?
You can see it, right? You can measure it on the page of the magazine, right? Maybe put your thumb up to it, measure how many thumbs it is across, your thumb's distance to the page, etc. You can even write a formula about what you're seeing, and solve for X, right? That's all wonderful.
In reality, the only way we'll find out how big this specific circle is, is if we find the original painting and physically measure the circle on the canvas.
I'll say it once more - we cannot possibly measure the sun, in distance or diameter, without assumptions. This means we're taking a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. And if you factor in physics that involve empirical evidence, your guess isn't quite as good as mine, because the sun behaves like a heat lamp, planes wouldn't be able to operate on a rotating ball, we'd be able to measure the Earth's many simultaneous movements through space, we'd be able to measure the curve, gravity would be measurable, etc. Yet none of that is true. It is absolutely mindblowing when you dig, and you find out just how much of the Heliocentric model is founded on something measurable. Something empirical. Something repeatable. Absolutely none of it.
To your earlier point that I did skip - the sun does get larger and smaller. Heliocentrists say that's all due to refraction. Refraction and gravity magically solve nearly every problem in their model. It's like zoom->enhance in CSI Miami.
How do orbits work? Gravity. Wouldn't the planets pull on each other as distances between them change, and knock orbiting all out-of-whack? No. Why? Because gravity.
How do we not feel the orbiting of the Earth as we change speeds around an ellipse? Gravity. But, we're accelerating and decelerating; couldn't we measure that? No. Why? Gravity.
How does water stick to a rotating ball? Gravity.
How does gas near space ignore the second law of thermodynamics? Gravity.
How do planes catch up to the spinning earth? Gravity.
Why can we see so far? Refraction. But... refraction wouldn't work like that. Yes it would. No, it wouldn't - prove it! We can't.
Why do we see rays of light coming in at different angles all over the world, if all rays are supposedly parallel? Refraction.
How does radar work from 100 miles away on a sphere? No explanation, but we'll assume it's a combination of refraction and gravity.
Why don't submarines see curvature on the bottom of the ocean, as they're able to scan for hundreds of miles? Same as above.
How does the Earth cause an eclipse on the moon, when both the moon and the sun are visible in the same sky? Refraction.
How do we see the same set of stars in the sky at night in January and June, if we're facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Distance, probably gravity, maybe a dash of refraction.
How do wireless point-to-point communication systems work on a sphere? Gravity + refraction. But that's not possible!
There's so much else. And yes, there are silly formulas to solve for that attempt to explain much of this. But saying 5 unicorns - 3 unicorns = 2 unicorns doesn't prove unicorns.
As far as the flight, planes wouldn't work if the earth was a rotating ball - but I know nothing of that flight. Yes, there are plenty of irrational excuses as to why it's possible that planes could fly, but they don't follow the laws of physics. I'll believe in God on faith, I won't believe in science on faith.