i agree

lets talk gravity again

how do we go down when we jump without gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TUpNkHcAM

their is a bunch of sunset u can watch where the sun appears to shrink in size

im not talkin gravity until someone can show me the experiment where 2 objects of mass are attracted to each other from their mass alone

Doesn't take glare into account, need a solar filter for that

that vid is bs

i saw sunsest irl

and there are a bunch of vids showing sunsets

well im telling u depending on the moisture in the air the sun might shrink a lot or not shrink at all

yes many sunsets show a big sun some show a sun getting smaller

i dont think so

maybe ur right idk

yeah i think the earth is a sphere

yeah

but i still want to know how we go back down without gravity

isnt it crazy at this point though that the rock solid proof of a sphere the undeniable evidenve that could and should be there isnt

mm

i guess

their should be no flat earthers

this shouldnt even be up for discussion

but it is

cause that proof that cant be denied isnt there

I think flat earth is a good thing in terms of skepticism and questioning.

u should be skeptic of mainstream science absolutely

if flat earthers are wrong its no big deal but if they arent

its a big deal

In my view, any concept is questionable and should remain debated, even earth being round.

Questioning and debated is not the same as denial however, you can still think the earth is spherical and be skeptical of it

if it was spherical the proof would be there

at this point it would be undeniable

thats not proof its flat but the fact the proof isnt there amongst other things make me not believe anymore

im not gonna believe in something they cant prove

Proof isn't the issue, falsifiability is.
If you can't falsify a particular hypothesis, it holds up to standards of evidence as long as its predictions are confirmed

u can prove the shape of something

the standard of evidence isnt that great for me to believe in the glboe

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