The standard globe model has been falsified, but it can be updated with quantified refraction parameters, and I think it may be able to work out.
The "proofs" are to do with the properties of non euclidean vs euclidean

im just not gonna believe in something that cant be proved but that could be and should be proved at this point

I don't think proof is necessary, but it can be helpful. Proof would be like creating a triangle with angles adding up over 180 degrees.

Evidence would simply be what data and observation lines up with the hypothesis

their should be rock solid undeniable evidence the earth is a sphere

its not there for me thats all

People can deny almost anything

yeah somethings are harder to deny that others

not a lot of people denying 1 plus 1 equals 2

You can't deny your own existence because denying existence implies you exist to deny it in the first place.
You can deny your experiences by assuming reality is an illusion or you are a brain in a vat, for example.

Earth is a sphere because it being flat while every other planet it a sphere is just stupid.

Don't have to prove it, just have to disprove flat Earth

ive looked into the holographic universe that was another good youtube video astral

There is no quantified, testable, falsifiable flat earth hypothesis as far as I'm aware

@jeremy Great, interesting stuff indeed

u saw it ?

Astral are you a FE?

Idk, link?
I've heard about the concept from people like David Icke

@Pinnaplia No

Not anymore

Ah ok

Because I didn't wanna have to repost the paragraph I flung at Mike earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU

i couldnt find the whole thing thats part one

its mad long

My point was that "disproving flat earth" is not really meaningful since it isn't fully defined and quantified for predictive power @Pinnaplia

Not falsifiable since it isn't set up

@jeremy Not too long, and hour and a half is usually fine for me if it is interesting

Very interesting, I'll check it out

thats part one lol

i cant remember its been a long time i think the whole things 5 hours maybe more idk

joe rogan graham hancock michael shermer debate was good

kent hovind evolution debates are good

carl munk the code was good

how do u feel on evolution

not micro evolution the rest of the evolutions

thats how they get u they bunch allt he evolution up with micro evolution

so when u say u dont believe in evolution u look stupid because micro evolution is real

I think evolution is testable and repeatable. As far as the claims on universal common ancestry and evolutionary pathways, a lot of that is merely speculative and depends on assumptions that can't really be justified.
So I am not a fan. I'm content with not knowing the answers.

ur saying micro evolution is real

yes i agree