And we're the ones too close-minded to accept your evidence.

well, it's not logical to rely on diagrams and "data". if you go into this debate sitting on the fence ("objectively") you will see that. currently you are defending the globe.

I'm not talking about space based information. I'm talking about you're general understanding of your surroundings.

GPS? Quarks? Atoms? Pressure?

You can't take picture of these things, but we use experiments and data to make "cartoons" of them so people can understand how they work.

We're not defending the globe, we're defending science. You on the other hand cherry pick the things you want to believe without any sort of consistency.

Weather girls are witches.

Not reading through a million pages.

Some simple points that really should be enough to debunk this for good, for all but the most inculcated obsessives.

The idea that the images of the earth have been doctored to demonstrate its ovoid shape would entail precise, global (hehe) planning by governments that have long been at odds. Both the Soviets and Americans sent satellites and men into Earth's atmosphere. Confirming that the Earth is 'flat' would be a cultural and scientific coup that neither side would readily surrender. Not to mention the men and women from other countries that have since visited and the satellites that other nations launch. Too many people, too much prestige to be gained from exposing the conspiracy. Human nature disagrees with your assertion.

It's really not even worth getting into the nitty-gritty of cosmogenesis, planetary formation, gravity (call it what you will, there is a force that acts proportional to mass - this is mathematically quantifiable and has been for centuries), magnetic field, etc.

I appreciate a good conspiracy. But come on. At least point to one that has real knowledge gaps. Granted you might be one who denies the scientific method as a valuable tool. Your comments on the first page indicate a 'mystical' understanding of existence, so logic experiments may be for naught.


Edit: did see a post saying that because it's called the "Theory of Gravity" it's suspect. That pretty much solves the 'doesn't believe in the scientific method' question. Lucky for you, you get to benefit from scientific advances literally every waking moment.

You mean it's not logical to use hard evidence in forming an opinion? It sounds like you haven't the first clue of what logic is. Check out Aristotle's Organon, it's all you really need on the subject. Alternatively, you can go for the easier, more modern read: Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

so hard to formulate the right words when dealing with so many different things/people. my apologies. yes. data is valid. experimental data. reproducible experiments. an example of what i mean is that believing the earth is as it is said to be means being able to actually test it. the thing is, we've sent independent balloons up to 122,000 feet. we've shot lasers across large bodies of water. detecting curvature should not be impossible for your laymen. but it is. we (flat earthers) collect data, and we compare it to ball-earth data. it doesn't jive.

Source? Something that details the methodology please, since that is very important.

GPS would actually work better and more cheaply than on a globe earth, because radio waves travel in straight lines. those vertical structures with all the cell tech on them would do a real tidy job. do i need to be an expert on quarks to think about the shape of the earth? i do have a general understanding of pressure and atoms though. if you'd like to talk about why i need that, feel free.

Also, info on how the methods of the data used to prove DWV's point are incorrect would be very useful too.