“The 3D visualization is just a rendering engine – it takes coordinates and displays them. Whether those coordinates come from VSOP87, direct observations, or manually entered positions doesn’t affect the accuracy of the visualization itself. We could swap out VSOP87 for direct observational data and the visualization would look exactly the same as long as the input coordinates match.” – Dr. Steven Alonzo
A globe model takes RA/Dec coordinates and transforms them onto a spherical surface using specific mathematical equations. The spherical geometry itself is not inherent in the original data, it’s applied during the transformation process.
Similarly, a Flat Earth model takes those same RA/Dec coordinates and transforms them onto its particular geometric framework, often using a polar azimuthal projection. Again, the flat geometry is not present in the original data but is applied through mathematical transformation.
This principle extends to any other model – hollow Earth, toroidal Earth, or any other geometric framework. Each one must:
1) Start with the same observational coordinate data
2) Apply its own specific mathematical transformations
3) Produce a visualization that represents those coordinates within its geometric framework
This understanding reveals why attacking a visualization solely based on its geometric model misses the point. The accuracy of a visualization should be judged by:
1) The accuracy of the input observational data
2) The mathematical consistency of the transformation process
3) How well the resulting visualization matches observed phenomena
The geometry of the model itself is separate from these factors. A globe model and a Flat Earth model using the same observational data and properly implemented transformations can both accurately represent celestial movements from an observer’s perspective, even though their underlying geometric frameworks differ dramatically.