Your premise is incorrect. A helicoentric model is not necessary to predict eclipses assuming that the moon is still believed to be closer to the Earth than the sun.

The people you are arguing with are wrong. So are flat earth folks.

Don't patronize me.

Please link to 4 such comments please.

I somehow doubt your opinion is that important to him. Maybe, though.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But asking people for supporting evidence is something we all should be doing.

I can link you to a comment just the other day

If you look down that thread they show /u/op-return why he isn't correct. He doesn't do research, he doesn't do experiments, he doesn't do science.

Heliocentric and Geocentric have absolutely nothing to do with the earth being flat. Even they could agree that is not true.

Mind arguing with me about flat earth here? Why do you believe the world is flat?

Just for starters: Ah, another video that cherry picks one particular airplane path that could be explained by one particutlar flat-Earth model, but ignores 1.) That the flight path is just as explainable with a globe-Earth model (see Great Circle routes), and 2.) Ignores the many, many airplane routes that simply don't work with any flat-Earth model. Flights turn out to have the wrong duration, don't fly over the right places, have distances that exceed the airplane's range, and so on. With a globe-Earth model, all the airplane flights fit the model. Not one flat-Earth model I've yet seen explains more than a couple of flights.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The map you linked shows connectivity between points in South America and Africa which are clearly in the Southern Hemisphere of a globe-Earth model.

You said " No connectivity between points in southern "hemisphere" ". I in turn pointed out that this isn't so: " The map you linked shows connectivity between points in South America and Africa ". You did not originally say anything about Australia, nor did I.

As for why there are no cables between Australia and South America, it probably doesn't make economic sense. That's 6000 miles, while Hawaii is only 4000 miles away and connects to North America.

Anyway, the North Atlantic cables are all longer than they would be if your flat-Earth model were correct, and all the trans-Pacific cables are shorter than they would be if the flat-Earth model were correct. Interestingly enough, the distances match the globe-Earth model.

This isn't a "problem for the globe model". A problem is when something that exists cannot be explained by the model. An example of this is why the cable lengths for the existing trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific are significantly different from what a flat model predicts. I point out again that the lengths match what a globe model predicts.

I suppose is we fall to the extreme of accepting only that which we directly verify ourselves, we can ignore a great deal of reality. Since you fall back on the "I'll only believe what I can test myself" mantra (while patently ignoring that you haven't measured any of the undersea cables either so can't actually say I'm wrong) I suggest you watch the series of videos beginning with https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=JgY8zNZ35uw . You won't appreciate the tone, I'm sure, but the series presents a number of observations that you can make yourself which will show you that a flat Earth model fails to predict observational reality.

Great. I've pointed out at least one hole in the flat earth model, and the video points out quite a few more. Please list the "more holes ... than Swiss cheese" in the globe earth model.

1 minute in and the "proof" is because it looks like it, except when it doesn't, which we can ignore because somebody else saw it. With this standard of "proof" you are going to get to believe anything you want. If you can accept this sort of reasoning, well, good day to you.

Spheres are a natural consequence of gravity acting on matter. That is why other celestial bodies are spheres and not giant fucking squares or rectangles. Oh thats right...you people dont believe in the laws of physics. Well too bad! Because they dont give a fuck if youre a gullible dunce whos mind is so easily hijacked by YouTube scientists.

Get this trash out of here.

Let me ask... Are other planets spherical or are they flat too?

Considering you think the surface content of Earth somehow makes it exempt from the laws of physics, Ill try to keep this at around an 8th grade level.

Lesson 1: All matter in space has mass. Planets have mass, "those tiny dots" (called stars by the way) have mass...asteroids, dust, atoms and everything else, has some measurable amount of mass. These are facts. Im sure you can agree with them.

Lesson 2: Gravity exists. It is one of the fundamental forces of the universe, and it acts on everything. Theres no way around it, and you can't not believe in it because it's quite demonstrably keeping your ass on the ground. Once again, you really have to agree with me here.

Lesson 3: Like I said all objects are subject to the force of gravity. The larger the object, the more susceptible it is to gravity. If an object is large enough, gravity will be what defines its shape. Now you've heard the phrase, center of gravity right? Of course you have. The mass of a large object will create a gravity well theoretically centered in the midpoint of the objects mass. Now the universe likes to be neat and consistent. So as gravity pulls matter towards other matter, a sphere will form. Because only a sphere allows every point on its surface to have the same distance from the center, so that no part of the object can further "fall" toward its center.

At this point I would get into sacred geometry, Holographic Theory, Toroid fields, and tetrahedrons but i'll let you work your way up to that. Just know spheres are an integral part of the building blocks of the universe, on all scales.

So instead ill leave you with some bubble blowing.

parroting Muh facts

Right. Accepting the dogma postulated by the great minds at the YouTube campus of Flat Earth University is a far less laughable act. I mean have you ever said it outloud to yourself? Try it. Say it outloud: "A series of nobodies with cameras on the internet convinced me that Earth is a different shape than all other objects in the universe despite the lack of any demonstrable evidence or logical reason for this to be the case."

Not a single Flat Earth cult member can provide a counterargument as to why the Earth would be the only floating rectangle in space while all other celestial bodies are spherical without either moving the goalposts or just simply taking the ostrich approach and claiming that those objects and the forces governing them, do not exist.

Actually, there a quite a few observations any and all of us can make that are easily explainable with a globe-Earth theory, but which are not explainable with a flat-Earth theory. I'll not repeat them all here, however, the "Testing Flattards" series on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw&t=8s) among others does a nice job. Warning: these videos are rude to those who believe in a flat-Earth model. If you may be offended by rudeness towards your beliefs, try some of the other videos that also explain the many problems with a flat-Earth models.

It's funny watching you get so upset when people point out how unintelligent you are.

Removed. Rule 4.

That bubble video is priceless.

it was based on the geocentric model, with earth in the center. Now, this documentary by no means is a flat earth documentary, not even close, but the idea that we need the heliocentric model to predict things accurately doesn't have any feet to stand on.

With what they could observe, and the mechanism is based on observation, not on theory, everything indeed could be explained by a geocentric model. Also, both models are wrong, simply because they are arbitrary points when you can't take the full picture in account. These days we have the computing power to make the gravitational calculations in way where we can put the 0,0,0 on the XYZ-scale anywhere we want. We could make a mars-centric model and it would still fit...

@20:10 in the video, that's what a crazed scientist looks like.

If you look down that thread they show /u/op-return why he isn't correct. He doesn't do research, he doesn't do experiments, he doesn't do science.