Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from the northern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-vi...
I think you're ignoring the experiment and moving to a different example because it's uncomfortable to address. Whenever the topic comes up the goalposts are always moved.
The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it.
Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak across over 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate the typical "you didn't control for x or y".
It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations.
It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction.
People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of the claims requires no further proof.
The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it.
Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak across over 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate the typical "you didn't control for x or y".
It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations.
It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction.
People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of the claims requires no further proof.
3👍1
