There would be no scientific advance, if everyone would repeat every single experiment and grow old and die before they complete the last experiment.

Where do you see me typing that everyone needs to repeat every experiment?

You're strawmanning me. 😡

Usually people create strawmans because they don't like what the other person is saying but can't think of a valid way to disagree with them.

And then it's annoying to the person who doesn't actually think the stupid thing you tried to pretend they think.

Try to do better.

So why don't you start? Go ahead and sift through all the experements that were made.

This has been fun, but probably about time to end it if this is still where we're at. Going in circles.

And this point is not complicated.

I could sift thru the literature of what they claim to be doing out there, but that wouldn't be a form of me observing and scientifically verifying it.

If I were to tell you about an experiment I ran in my basement, it doesn't mean you observed, measured, and verified those discoveries.

Maybe I'm describing it correctly. Might be totally correct. Might be worth listening to me and learning from it. But you didn't observe what I'm talking about. You observed me telling you about it.

Reading scientific literature might be a fruitful thing that expands our curiosity and understanding of the world. You just aren't technically engaged in a scientific process when you do it.

(And the people who write that literature agree with me.)

here:

Reading about what people did is not what science or the scientific method refers to.

I can do it, but I don't get to say that's science or that I observed the results.

Really?
How would it be possible that distances on the southern hemisphere are about 3 times as long as on the northern hemisphere on a flat model, but still no one discovered something like this?
And still planes fly a much longer way than they would, if they were flying on a flat earth? That would be very expensive, don't you think?

Those are worded pretty sloppy and I actually don't know what you mean.

But the Xs and Ox of flat earth and how much sense they make aren't the point to any of this.

(You were talking about what's "coherent to your observations of the world around you", and I'm simply giving my own perspective that I've never observed anything that makes flat earth stand out as totally not viable.)

If you have a smoking gun thing that should make me see how not coherent it is, cool.

Maybe you can word it a little better and I can know what you mean.

That's why Erasthosthenes already measured earth's radius over 2000 years ago.

So I guess you recognize that knowing the radius doesn't prove it's a sphere. (Since flat was the prevailing belief after he did this.)

Yet, earlier, you tried to pretend that knowing the radius would show that it's a sphere.

tsk tsk

And at the moment you didn't give me much concrete information on that "coherent and possible" flat earth model.

I haven't tried to and don't care to. Convincing you about flat earth isn't the point to any of this.

Convincing you what science and the scientific method refer to, and that you don't get to say you observed things that you didn't observe is something I've attempted to do. 😃

You can google if you're actually interested in flat earth model. I don't know that much about it anyways.