>>22714042>don't need to, we have a physical example every day.That's not how this works. Anything in nature can be modeled. From the function of a neuron to a folding protein to the movement of the stars year over year, everything follows a predictable path we can map out using basic math.
If you cannot model a flat earth that works, then it's not flat by definition. Not to mention that you can't answer this simple counterpoint,
>If it's flat, then why's everything so fucking round?Think about it:
-If it's flat, why does the sun disappear below the horizon in a way you can't quite explain?
-Why does the area the sun's light touch perfectly match up with half of a globe, but has to be explained by some magic spotlight bullshit on a flat earth?
-Why do you see the same stars anywhere you look anywhere on earth in the southern hemisphere? Makes sense on a globe since they're all on the same side, not so on a flat disc.
You have to make excuse after excuse to FORCE flat earth to work, because everything's so fucking round that you have to keep explaining observed phenomena instead of it just working like it does on a globe.
The moon follows a simple curved path on a globe, you can't model a flat earth where the moon's path makes a lick of sense. On the flat earth model, the moon does all sorts of wacky somersaults through the sky for no apparent reason. I guess god's just an asshole and wants to give the globe liars as much counterevidence as possible since there's NOTHING that is easy in the flat earth model.
Look at picrel. How can the sun be observed in all these directions at once?
