Madhudvisa bullet points

(This list is just from Madhudvisa's first post: https://flatearthfacts.com/flat-earth-model/  I don't have the energy to find everything he said that was patently false.)

- The globe was “reverse engineered”.  This is not true.  The Earth was observed to be round or spherical based on the shadow it casts on the moon during lunar eclipses.  The size was estimated by Eratosthenes in 240 BC.
- “There is no explanation for the orbits to be elliptical.”  In reality, a truly circular orbit is incredibly less likely than an elliptical orbit.  Even the smallest irregularity in the forces at work when the planets were forming would cause them to change from a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.  There are many gravity simulators out there.  Try to make a planet take a circular orbit: http://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html  Did you notice how many elliptical orbits you made before you got your first circular orbit?  So, elliptical orbits are FAR more common than circular.
Referring to the axial tilt: “There is no reason for it. We can not measure it, we do not know actually if the earth is a spinning globe tilted at 23.44 degrees orbiting around the sun in 365 days.”  We CAN measure it.  Lay a one square meter object on the ground in the northern or southern hemisphere, and measure the intensity of the light hitting it at 4 different dates throughout the year.  This is the simplest way to measure the axial tilt.
- “But we are inside this system and from our vantage point on earth there is no way we can tell if it is the earth rotating or the heavenly bodies rotating around the earth.”  From the surface of the Earth, we cannot prove geocentrism or heliocentrism.  But satellites have proved heliocentrism.  If we disregard satellite data, then we are left with two models: the geocentric model that has 2,500 years or development, is complicated and imprecise, and the heliocentric model that has about 400 years of development, is simple and very accurate.  The geocentric model has to map out retrograde motion, but cannot explain why it happens, cannot predict when it will happen (beyond a few years), and cannot explain why Earth is not affected by the forces that cause the retrograde motion.  The heliocentric model does not have retrograde motion, but shows how an observer on the Earth would perceive retrograde motion.  It is also able to predict retrograde motion very accurately, out past centuries in the future.
- “Scientists have, over the years, designed a number of experiments trying to prove the rotation of the earth. They have all failed to detect any rotation except the Foucault Pendulum experiment, however we know that things on the earth are affected by forces imposed on them by the heavenly bodies.”  Aircraft gyroscopes are so accurate that they will be off by an amount exactly equal to the curvature of the Earth.  They have automatic adjustment mechanisms built into them that account for this and keep them accurate.  Those are called erection mechanisms.  You can read up on them here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16376/how-are-attitude-indicators-kept-accurate
- “If we were moving in a straight line at a constant velocity then you could put forward the argument that we could not feel that or measure it. But this theory supposes we are rotating in at least 4 different directions at the same time and traveling very fast in different directions. So this rotation and movement in different directions at the same time would create forces that we could measure and feel. But we can not measure or feel any forces.”  We CAN measure these forces, but we cannot “feel” them.  The Earth rotates 360° in 24 hours.  That works out to be 15° per hour, or ¼° per minute, or 0.00416° per second.  The Earth orbits the sun at the rate of 360° per year, or 0.9863° per day, or 0.041096° per hour, or 0.00068493° per minute, or 0.0000114155° per second.  If we add those forces (which is only correct for half of the day), that comes out to be 0.004178° per second.  Sol orbits the galactic core even slower than that: 360° in 230 million years.  To test if you would feel this, hop on a merry-go-round, and have a friend rotate you at 0.004178° per second, and tell me if you “feel” that.
- “In fact the earth appears to be ‘as solid a rock’. If we are looking for an analogy for stability we think of the fixed stationary earth. And you can not argue this point. The earth does appear to be stationary. It appears stationary to our senses, we can not detect any spinning or any other forces that would be detectable if it was moving as the globe earth model presupposes. So this is a great flaw in the globe earth model. It proposes the earth is moving in ways which it is obviously not. Because if the earth was moving in the ways proposed by the globe earth model we would be able to detect it. We would be able to feel the forces and be conscious of the moving, rotating earth under our feet, and the scientists would be able to measure these forces exactly. But we can not feel anything and the scientists can not measure anything…”  This is NOT a flaw in the globe Earth model, and your claim that it IS a flaw exposes that you do not understand the difference between linear and rotational speeds.
- “Gravity is something we can not prove, we can not test or measure.”  Do you have a scale in your bathroom?  You can test and measure gravity.  What you are measuring with a bathroom scale is the mass of the object on the scale.  To say we cannot measure gravity is to say we cannot measure mass.
- Rahu “is dark, does not reflect any light, and moves in the sky like the stars. So we can’t find it because as it moves with the stars it does not occult the stars. Of course it is covering some stars but it is always covering the same stars, so we don’t notice it.”  You also said “Rahu is the size of the moon in the sky, but dark, reflects no light, so we can not see it. If an area of the sky was covered by something the size of the moon and moved like the stars we would just presume there were no stars there and think nothing of it…” If it is always covering the same stars, then we just need to find a spot in the sky that is 31 arcminutes in diameter, that does not have any stars in it.  When I proposed this earlier, you then said it moves relative to the stars, so it does not always cover the same stars.  I then said we would only need to find a star that was occulted one day, and not the next, and then we would be able to track Rahu.  You then said “So all Rahu has to do to remain undetectable to us is to remain in that half of the sky that is illuminated by the sun.”  But only half of the Earth is in daylight at a time, so when it is daytime here, we have astronomers on the night side of Earth track Rahu when we cannot.  Since it cannot be in our atmosphere, it cannot remain “in the half of the sky that is illuminated by the sun”.