>>40498267
not the guy you're responding to, but ill give it a shot, if nothing but for my own benefit in the case you're just a hired shill
>Do you believe earth to be a globe in motion, traveling around the sun? If so, why do you personally hold this belief?
yes, because we can use telescopes to observe many objects in space the majority of which are spheres. its not a great leap in logic to deduce ours is similar. this is of course just a piece of evidence on a long list, but i think a rather convincing one
>What do you personally believe to be the reason that objects fall down on earth?
as we observe these other objects move through space around the sun, it seems to apply an attractive force to them, which forces them change their trajectory in usually predictable ways. i dont believe the effects of density and bouyancy would explain this phenomena
ultimately, i think a model of reality should be judged on how the accuracy of the predictions it can make. flat earth doesnt have a model, just speculation, and thus cant make any predictions.
using the "sphere earth and gravity is observable" model we can make lots of predictions like trajectories and relative speeds of bodies in space, the location and movements of celestial constellations, the timing of seasons, tidal cycles, among many of things.
where's the flat earth model that can predict these things and the math why it works? in 2025 it would be trivial to make a computer program that could simulate these things if there was a model, just as there is for the sphere/gravity model.
have we discovered a single practical use for the flat earth model? genuinely curious
props for sticking around and at least seemingly arguing in good faith, as most flat earth posts seem to be pure spam and then the poster vanishes
