We often see flat-Earthers create a ‘miniaturized physical model’ of a real object and present them as ‘proof’ in support of flat-Earth and against spherical Earth. Their M.O. is to observe if the model remotely resembles the actual object in a particular way. If it does, then it is enough for them to conclude the model describe how the real object works.
Conversely, if a real object cannot be miniaturized and still have the same behavior as the original object, they would conclude that the behavior of the original object doesn’t exist.
They would wrongly call creating such models “doing an experiment”.
Some example of such “experiments”:
- Pouring water into a ball. Water doesn’t stick to the ball. They conclude seawater should not stick to the Earth if the Earth is spherical.
- Placing a water-level on a surface of a globe. It does not show level surface. They conclude the Earth is not spherical.
- Using various forms of a light modifier like lenses, prisms, and mirrors to show that the Sun can have the appearance of a sunset in a flat-Earth.
Obviously, their conclusions are wrong:
- The model cannot be taken as ‘evidence’ the same way a model of an eclipse is never intended as evidence of an eclipse.
- Just because a model exhibits the same behavior, it does not mean the actual object works the same way in every other way.
- They never bothered proving if the model actually represents the actual object. But they jumped to conclusions and took the model as valid evidence.
- The existence of a physical model is not a prerequisite. An observation of the actual object is always stronger evidence.
- One of their models is made to “explain” a specific phenomenon. But would conflict with another model or another phenomenon.
These things they are calling “experiment” only serve as a demonstration that they don’t know what they are doing.
For example, to disprove gravity, one needs to know everything about gravity. Just because they don’t understand it is not proof gravity does not exist. And if they genuinely understand gravity, they would not do something like the water on a ball experiment and take it as the ‘proof’ of the non-existence of gravity.