Ah, so by model - you mean a youtube video or a textbook, because there are books upon books that describe this model. I suppose you need more. If you want me to start posing the hard questions about the problems with the Earth model -I will: Starting with Gravity.
I really want you to think about this because your attitude is quite rude in general in this argument. Please just take the time to consider the problems with gravity. Science is not a dogma, but an observational study of nature.
First, weight and mass, even though they are seen to be separate, I pose that they are actually not, and this is a fallacy/and /or the Earth is Stationary.
1 - The centrifugal forces of a spinning Earth mean that there SHOULD be a difference of over 0.5% of measured weights between the equator and the North Pole, this is simply not the case in reality.
2 - The weights should also differ as we get higher and higher off of the ground, even in routine commercial flight, even in a tall skyscraper, this is simply not the case in reality.
3 - The weights should be DRASTICALLY different during a new moon at high noon, and at midnight on a new moon, not only that but we should experience LATERAL gravity during sunrise/sunset especially during new moon. This is simply not the case in reality.
4 - We should be able to measure lateral gravity, however minute, coming from large vertical objects on Earth ie mountains, this is simply not the case in reality. Especially when you consider that the Earths mass was originally calculated from the Cavendish experiment, while looking through a telescope reading measurements of lead balls apparently.
5 - It seems as though the current gravitational model only considers certain aspects of gravity, and not others - this is clear when you observe the near perfect orbit of the moon, which SHOULD be greatly affected by the gravitational pull of the Sun, but seems to only be affected by the gravity of the Earth - how can this be? The moon's orbit should be constantly making an oval pattern towards the sun, with the very soon result being either crashing into the Earth or drifting out of orbit and moving towards the Sun. Furthermore, every time the orbit of the moon crosses in front of the moving path of the Earth it should close distance more and more, as gravity is only an attractive 'force' and not a repelling force.
6 - A vessel filled with 100 grams of water and a vessel of the same size filled with 100 kg (or much, much more) of water will, when dropped from any height, make contact with the Earth's surface at the same exact millisecond, this is reality. So now if we compare this to say, the Earth and Moon, or any other two bodies of differing weight, we should see the same effect - and this simple observation alone is enough to make a thinking man reconsider gravitational theory. The Suns pull should have the same effect on the Earth as say - Jupiter, or a human, or any object, for reality tells us it is so.
7 - A bullet fired horizontal from a gun and a bullet dropped from the same height will touch the surface of the Earth at the same millisecond, although in two different places, this is reality. So we see that speed has no effect whatsoever on gravitational pull. This then, as well as above ideas, debunks Newton's cannon - the premise that an object, the faster it moves, the weaker gravity becomes upon it.
8 - This is the big one and this alone should really cause you and all readers to pause for a while and reflect on it. Orbits have NEVER been created in any circumstance on Earth. Meaning if I have a big old gymnasium - there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in gravitational theory that says if I place an large lead ball in one corner of the Gym, and in the center place a lead ball 81 times the weight of the one in the corner (ie the weight difference of the Earth and Moon), and proceed to roll the smaller lead ball in the direction of a closest corner, again - there is NOTHING in gravitation theory that says that the smaller ball should display an attraction towards the larger ball. According to the model that ties the whole of the universe together - the smaller ball should show a tendency to orbit the larger ball - of course this is a hypothetical gymnasium, so you can instead visualize this in, say, the salt flats of Bolivia. It really doesn't matter where or how, the point is - in gravitational theory, all objects of mass should be attracted to all other objects of mass - and this is painfully obviously not the case as an orbit has NEVER been shown here on Earth. Really - in gravity theory - a cotton ball thrown sideways across your face should orbit your body on its path downward to the Earth - especially in a vacuum - of course this is ridiculous.
I have not called you names - nor have I insulted your intelligence during this comment in any way. I did not copy paste anything here or even reference any outside information while I was typing this. I ask that you be civil, and ponder these ideas, give me what retort you come up with. I don't see science as black or white. I do not think some youtuber has the working model of the Earth, but what I am putting forth here is that, when you say the Globe's workings are bullet proof , I strongly disagree, and this is just one topic, and I am just skimming this one topic. There are many stupid ideas concerning the Flat Earth, but it takes bravery to tackle the stupid ideas that the military (NASA) and the educational system have installed to gracefully into our minds. I will be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the nature of reality, and anyone who can make this claim I suspect is not practicing science in any sense.
Cheers.
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
