I don't know if this is illegal, to make a separate post to sway people, but comments get lost in the back and forth on the Motion thread.
Recently, u/clemaneuverers made a post about kicking FE (Flat Earth) from conspiracies. As expected this went over like a ton of bricks. So let me tell you why I voted YAY:
1 Math doesn't check out. Gravity would not make sense of a flat earth. Furthermore, if one twisted the math enough to fill in the loopholes, the gaps, the, "Huh, it divides by zero," you would throw off the balance of the delicately simple equations. Physics would break down, and in the effort to prove "science," one would find themselves in the uncomfortable position of trying to bring down the basic building blocks of reality.
2 The light doesn't make sense. Sunrises in the lower hemisphere are off by up to 60 degrees in the flat earth model based on what we truly know from locals, the weather stations there, any source there for that matter.
3 The other celestial objects are spheres. (sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc)
4 NASA is lying, but they can only contort the truth, they cannot kill it.
a) can one exist outside of perceivable "now" and what if the center of perceivable now represents each perceiving "one"?
b) what if others suggest both past and future to lure oneself away from the center, as well as zero as the inversion of one (self) as the center?
c) notice that I asked about "perceivable" nature, while you answered with "suggesting" possibilities. Does consent to suggested (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable (reality)?
a) SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...so indeed science represents communication between perceivable (whole) and perceiving (partial).
b) if one consents to suggested "scientism", hence perceivable science suggested by others, then one ignores perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information). Guess who gains the power to define, redefine and contradict the suggested information if ones consents to the suggestion thereof?
c) PHILO (to love) SOPHY (knowledge) represents the "pursuit of knowledge". What if knowledge perceivable origin, while love/pursuit represents ones choice to "want" to love/pursue suggested over the "need" to adapt to perceivable?
d) how can anything within everything perceivable "not" represent knowledge (perceivable). How could a suggestion be shaped without utilizing the perceivable foundation to shape it within; out of and in response to?
a) SPHAIRA (surrounding) + OEIDES (form)....what if the surrounding of form (life) implies flow (inception towards death)? What if others can distract one from comprehending this by suggesting them SPHEROIDS (body resembling, but not identical with), hence a suggested substitute for the perceivable origin?
b) what if a partial (perceiving) cannot define the meaning of whole (perceivable) by making suggestions about it towards others. What if the perceivable whole represents the "pre-defined" meaning, allowing the partials perceiving it from within to "re-define" themselves?
Example: to suggest "life means..." ignores that whatever one suggests life means, will be changed by the ongoing process of dying.
a) what if one can be tempted to reason over forms suggested by others (flat vs heliocentric), while ignoring ones perspective as the perceiving one within perceivable or the one consenting to stand under (understanding) what others are suggesting?
Everything perceivable represents the surrounding for each perceiving one, and everything suggested, by others surrounding oneself, aims at ones consent from the center.
b) REST, noun [Latin resto] - "cessation of motion"...where is the cessation of motion for life, while being moved from inception towards death?
If one exists within the momentum of motion (balance), then what if each one represents the center of balance...free will of choice? Could others exploit this by tricking choice to consent to suggestions offered by the choice of others?
a) why do you attach MULTIPLY (to increase in number) when things implies each ONE (partial divided within whole)? Also; NUM'BER, noun -"the designation of a unit" + U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one".
b) what if each "one" thing (living) represents the center of everything (process of dying)? What if everything doesn't represent the multiplication of each thing, but the division of oneness (whole) into each one (partial)?
What if one perceives addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole), while others suggest MATH, noun -"a mowing; as in aftermath" to distract "one" with a center based on "zero", hence the suggested inversion of perceivable?
What if form (material) represents the center of flow (immaterial), while choice of material (reaction) represents the center of immaterial (balance aka enacting momentum)?
GEO (earth) METRIC (to measure)...who is measuring but oneself at the center, and who is suggesting one to COUNT and measure? https://pic8.co/sh/1rIGYa.jpg
Does one need to MEASURE, noun - "the whole extent or dimensions of a thing" or adapt as the partial within the whole?
a) English represents Pig-Latin, an ongoing revisionism of language to domesticate slaves by allowing their masters to communicate underneath language. Be it through numerology (gematria); phonetics (sound underneath words); rhetoric (reasoning about suggested meaning), inversion (suggested over perceivable), contradiction (talmudic reasoning to divide into conflicts of reason and conquer comprehension with understanding aka standing under suggested information) etc.
Notice that English was robbed of all natural connotations for suggested theism aka THE -ism?
b) the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) implies TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.]; hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural"...in other words...suggested fiction (words) over perceivable reality (sound) established (institute) by choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law...the inversion of balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.