yet it is still building a relevance upon a plane …. a linear state of view. better, though. a little closer. every observed pattern is merely a mimic of shape and form from a lower system. planets are seen as round balls, but are they? the linear path of the sun is based upon origin and destination. yet is there a destination? if you sit at a traffic stop and the other car inches forward, are you moving backward? so it is perception and visualization. which when it comes down to it, we can only perceive a system below us. so pictures are made as if we are above and looking at a lower system. but even in a spaceship, it might FEEL like you are above the lower system, but you are not. are still working with the same optics and eyes geared to work WITHIN that system, not without of it. we balance our bodies to walk in a strait line. so we also believe the sun “walks” through the universe in a straight line.
measurement is a tricky thing, because it creates relevancies that do not exist. or rather only exist within conceptualization and may or may not provide correlations that can only verify that the measurement itself is likely to be accurate and useful for predictive purposes. look at the imagery of a ball, with every part of the surface exactly the same. is that correct when applied to planets? but it is how a ball might appear on a surface that is within our optical abilities to view.
so we can only say it is like this — or like this …. in the end the perspective is that we are very small and the universe is very big. we are small and the earth is big. and so lends to a sense of freedom. expansion. but are we more like organisms in a petri dish growing out of control to soon only gobble up the resources and expire? so i wonder at the fascination in “perceiving” space. and in some ways any model is correct, because none of them are right.