I find the idea interesting, but I am skeptical when there is only one main source of information. Too many people seem to just say 'go to Eric dubay'...is he really the only one who can do this? Or perhaps is that some marketing of his own?

--

I am a map skeptic, not yet sure on the shape either, but to claim it must be flat because a book says it which has been translated a bunch of times, vs a bunch of scientists who learned to repeat math equations designed by a few key people through history. Both are just as likely to have issues.

Gravity while necessary for the globe models and physics we have, doesn't disappear with a flag world...things still rise and fall none the less in both.

The act of flying off is interesting except from the scale and relative nature of the atmosphere and electromagnetics that must also be accounted for if you are to look at the globe model - not just gravity.

Again ... Gravity is still the linchpin it seems in a lot of these arguments and since no one can explain it.....even if they say 'density bro'....like what does that even mean.... Can you please define the so called physical laws that you are then replacing everything with using your density and give some equations for use that replace the gravity equations? Why does density then only seem to make things go up and down...why not side to side....

It's the one area of contention I have with the globe skeptics.