/sci/ - Science & Math

We can rule out any model that postulates a moving earth. Experiments have shown beyond doubt that the earth is motionless (eg airy's failure, michelson morley experiment etc). A moving earth model also contradicts astronomical observations and just basic intuition and common sense. So the conventional heliocentric globular model can be dismissed.

The flat earth model that has artificially exploded in popularity is also nonsensical and can be dismissed out of hand based on basic intuition, common sense, simple astronomical observations, geodesy, flight paths etc.

Tycho Brahe put forward a stationary geocentric globular model which is the most accurate model we have with regards to astronomical observations and accurately explains the planetary motions (which the conventional heliocentric globular model embarrassingly fails at) and resolves all of the inconsistencies and errors of ptolemy's geocentric model. However an inverted stationary concave earth model that uses Tycho's planetary motion scaled down might work just as well, and there's some evidence and experiments which favor a concave model over the geocentric stationary globular model.

At the end of the day it's important to remember that these are just models. In reality the earth probably has no shape because what we call "the physical world" is not fundamental reality. The physical world of space and time is merely the scaffolding our mind uses to construct our internal world of representation that renders on our screen of sensory perceptions. This reconciles the fact that the surface of the earth always appears to a subjective observer as an expansive flat plane (numerous experiments demonstrate no curvature) with the fact that traveling in one direction long enough will deliver you back to where you began. It's because the universe is boundless. There is no edge. There is no "shape".

With that being said, a sphere is still the most useful way to model the universe in three dimensions.