or a spagetti monster happens to create the phenomenon with trillions of invisible omnipresent noodle arms

that can be the only rational explanation

@Morning Dew if you're suggesting to use gravity whilst ignoring how gravity works and making the claim "god stops it from doing this" then sure, you could twist it all you wanted to work for you. Except that isn't really gravity, that's just a version in which specific rules are ignored to make it reconcile with a model it should classically be impossible to exist on.

it would be interesting to see what shape could do that nico lol

my my, that’s some word salad you’ve got there, I’m very impressed, you get a gold star

Not as strongly crafted as your word salad, my friend

i swear its like i can always call your type out before you say anything

you’re not even grasping the socratic challenge i presented you, i am not foolish enough to be intimidated by empty words

@Morning Dew also, your common fallacy that my type seems to consistently present is not completely accurate.
We made an explanation to explain a certain observation, but this explanation also predicts other observations and gives direct mathematical predictions for these observations.
And guess what? When we try to experimentally test and confirm said predictions they turn out to be perfectly consistent with our theory.

you are, as I like to put it, implying there is only one way to add up to 9, because you proved that 8+1 always equals 9. that does not prove it is the only equation that does that

SHEEPLE has a vid of a laser going upwards yes

bending

yes

That's why general relativity (our theory of gravity) has been experimentally shown to be consistent and mirror reality

It may not be the only way, but its shown to be consistent and able to predict phenomena with precision

perfect example, roche, of a math problem that works but is unrelated to reality. Again, @Shadow✓, that does not prove it is the only explanation.

Therefore it can accurately reflect reality and has been shown to

I never said it's the "only" explanation, I said it's an explanation we use because it's consistent with reality. Thus why it's still a modern theory.

i think those demonstrations also rely on a lot of trust in authority rather than direct observation shadow

I’m scared

@raspberry you mean the predictions?

yes

people will say the exact same things about “standard refraction” even though it is ridiculous and unproven through experimentation. Your math may or may not explain reality. it may merely correlate with reality. THEREFORE, there could be another explanation that works on a flat earth, THEREFORE gravity could work on a flat earth, THEREFORE it does not prove what you think it proves. Now go ahead and shift the goalpost again

well the fact that the predictions match reality at least

There's gravitational redshifting, gravitational lensing, and gravitational time dialation

redshifting and time dilation are usually just done assuming GR is true, they don't prove it

None really require an appeal to authority since they're all involved with a profession that you can achieve and do a direct observation or measurement yourself.

lensing is supposed to be a proof but... have you ever seen that happen?

maybe we can check during the next total solar eclipse like einstein did

but, i feel like there'd be a more practical way to demonstrate curvature, if it existed

gravity does not prove what you implied it proved, as I have have just socratically proven. by all means though, continue stroking your ego

it is a very good theory that correlates with reality, congratulations

i hope you got an A in physics

probably didn’t have the same luck in english

@Morning Dew but the explanation that could work on a flat earth isn't gravity. That's my point. You're trying to use a specific theory and say it's the same as a completely different one that would need different rules and properties. And no gravity still doesn't work on a flat earth, you're literally claiming that a completely changed version of the theory in the globe model is the exact same as the original, it's like saying newtonian gravity is the exact same as general relativity.

@raspberry curvature of spacetime?

i meant of the earth lol, but that too

both i guess

I'm not really talking about earth though

as you have claimed yourself, it is a phenomenon. A phenomenon you have CORRELATED with an equation. It does not prove that it is the only equation that can correlate with that phenomenon. emphatically, it does not prove that the Earth is round. that is called a socratic proof, consider taking philosophy and learning about truth tables, or keep rephrasing what you have already said, feel free to do it again, i grow bored of this since my ego is detached from this pointless discussion of semantics

i figure we got into gravity because of globe vs fe, but, same for gravity too i guess