This is not what anyone claims you say.
Can you make any kind of response without misrepresenting others?
No, this is NOT what I am saying. I was explicitly saying that "This is what flat earthers claim that globe earthers tell them."
If you don't want to assert that Flat Earthers are "not anyone", you are obviously wrong.
This is the premise you actually hold as globe earthers. And I am not a flat earther. I've clarified this enough. Plus I don't do categories.
But this is also not what "Globe Earthers" tell you, except in some very small details.
So you are just a "Globe Earth Denier". Well, if you copy and use the common misrepresentations that Flat Earthers use in this case, it doesn't matter much what specific model you believe in. If you quack like a Flerfer, you will be seen as a Flerfer.
What in my statement above was false?
If you claim the earth is a globe don't you assume people live underneath?
No. That would assume a general euclidian direction of "up" and "down". "Up" and "down" on the globe model are defined by the direction of the center of the Earth. So people on the globe do not live "underneath" it - except if they are troglodytes - they life on the opposite side.
The don't "fall off" for the same reason... because "down" is pointing towards the center, towards the ground from our perspective.
This is a difference that you need to understand if you want to critizise the globe model.
Don't you assume the earth spins around it's axis at a certain speed, bringing about night and day?
At a "certain" speed... yes. At a "crazy speed that would make you dizzy and have the blood rush into their head"... no.
Again, understand the difference. Understand the scales and sizes involved. Understand the forces and reactions involved.
Speed isn't the issue in most cases. Humans do not experience "speed". Physically, there is no difference between a reference system that is stationary and one that is moving at a constant speed.
A point on the equator rotates at a linear speed of about 1000 mph. That's "crazy", is it?
Well, the Concorde, the supersonic plane, had a cruising speed of about 1300 mph. Totally crazy! People would have blown off the plane, right? Except they didn't, and the passengers could enjoy their champagne in tranquility as their transport buzzed through the sky at "crazy" speeds.
Now the movement of a point on earth is not a linear movement at constant speed, but a rotationary. The important factor here is not the linear speed, but the angular speed. On earth, it reaches the whoping amount of ONE rotation in 24 hours, or 15 degree per hour.
Do the experiment. Sit down in a comfortably rotating chair and turn at that rate. Will you get dizzy? Will things start to fly away from you? No.
It is quite easy to calculate the forces that are involved in such a motion. The formula for gravity is known. The formula for centrifugal force is known. This is middle school maths and physics... and this is not some weird speculation and "obey the Lords of Maths" stuff... it is easy to derive these formulas experimentally.
Flerfers like to point to spinning wheels and carousels - fine impressive examples - but they never use examples of slowly spinning objects. They never do the calculations.
If they did - if YOU did - you would find out that the force that makes "the blood rush into their heads" is about 0.5 percent of the force the keeps you safely on the ground.
Flerfers never consider all the forces and factors involved.
The difference in weight for an avarage person between the poles and the equator is less than a modern cell phone.
Do you feel weighted down with your phone in your pocket? Do you suddenly feel like you can fly if you put it down?
The normal daily change due to eating, drinking, sweating on a day is more than the difference between geographical position. You don't "feel" that either.
And in the same line, the same point of "scale". The forces we experience due to the movement of the earth are very very small in relation to the other forces involved. Not only gravity, but basically every other movement we take. Every single step you take, every turn you take involves forces that are already bigger than those due to the earths movement. You need to be subjected to some serious accelaration before you start to "feel" it.
Don't you assume the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth?
No. We don't "assume" this, and we definitly don't say "it looks close, but don't trust your senses. Instead use the number we tell you."
Flerfers and Globe deniers like to disregard mathematics... but they never give any reason for that, except that they don't like it, don't understand it and it constantly negates their claims.
So maths work. Geometry works, very well. Geometry
means "measuring the land / earth".
Based on this knowledge and some reasonable and verifiable basic assumptions, we can do "measurements".
You might disagree with these basics, and thus deny these measurements, but even then they clearly show that the sun
cannot be "close" to the earth.
It is not without cause that Globe Deniers cannot figure out just where - or even what - their "close sun" really is.
And globe earthers do not tell you "don't trust your senses". They will tell you "consider carefully what kind of conclusions you draw from your senses. Consider that it is very easy to draw false conclusions."
Do you know that Father Ted scene with the cows? Where he tries to tell his companion Dougal the difference between cows that are "small" and "far away"?
That's the way that our senses can lead us to false conclusions... and this is why we use measurements to be certain.
Aren't you still drinking some of that delusion Kool Aid?
No. I am completely prepared to consider and discuss any valid objection that people have regarding the globe model. Or to discuss the validity of their own model.
But as long as they constantly demonstrate that they do not
understand the model they are critizising - just like you did here - their objections are not valid.
And in the same way, as long as their own models consist of "something like this but with a little more of that", instead something that you can analyze, their "models" aren't valid.
The model isn't meant to work on flat earth. It has nothing to do with flat earth besides not being a globe. The flat earth movement was a quest for the truth which ended up becoming nonsensical.
This doesn't work on your model either. If you assert that the sun goes "under" the earth - meaning a side that is not part of our known surface geometry - that would mean that
all of the earth would experience darkness at that time. And this contradicts the existing observations.
The ancients could come up with such a model, because they simply didn't know that it is always day in some parts of the earth. They didn't have the means to come to this knowledge.
Modern Flat Earther models with their sun going in circles over the earth and illuminating only parts of it have different problems... but at least they acknowledge the existence of timezones. The ancient model - that you promote here - cannot account for this observation.
Phrase: orbis terrarum, from H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl & H776 אֶרֶץ ʼerets
