Is it fair to say then that you simply believe that the world is not a globe?

As i keep telling you, i work very hard (and it is central to flat earth research, as well as necessary for the chance at objective study of any kind) not to believe anything!

I used to believe the world was spherical, just as we all were raised to from childhood. Now i no longer believe that, and through my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it. Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)

In your own perspective, yes

No, in reality! Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality. In reality, we can trivially demonstrate that weight is not always a force that points downwards. We can also demonstrate that it is intrinsic to the matter itself, and there is no possible matter without weight.

But it's just a belief that it applies universally in all environments, unless you've been there.

It is established the same way everything in scientific law is - repeated observation/measurement. It is true that the laws of nature may be different at some wacky location but - until and unless we can get there to measure that wacky difference - the principle of uniformitarianism is a given and a pillar of science. You may believe that things happen differently elsewhere or under some special circumstance, but until you confirm it through observation/measurement - it's just belief.

It is true, however - that science is always provisional and subject to change (often extreme change) as new data is collected. The foundation of uniformitarianism, on which science is built, is a speculative posit, i agree - however, it has been a largely valuable one.

Science can only make partial positive statements, never absolute ones. When i say the surface of the earth can't be spherical, it is due to the laws of nature that we established on its surface.

Well, no, because I was asking about you, specifically. Not the royal you

You mean the royal we? You were only asking me, and i was only responding to you. My answers are my own.

You asked why i don't study the "cube earth". I answered that question for myself, and cannot speak for anyone else. You said "exactly", indicating that you now understand why i don't. Are you still misunderstanding something?

I understand why "we" don't, but not why "you" don't.

I am a part of we, my friend!

Is it fair to say then that you simply believe that the world is not a globe?

As i keep telling you, i work very hard (and it is central to flat earth research, as well as necessary for the chance at objective study of any kind) not to believe anything!

I used to believe the world was spherical, just as we all were raised to from childhood. Now i no longer believe that, and through my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it. Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)

In your own perspective, yes

No, in reality! Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality. In reality, we can trivially demonstrate that weight is not always a force that points downwards. We can also demonstrate that it is intrinsic to the matter itself, and there is no possible matter without weight.

But it's just a belief that it applies universally in all environments, unless you've been there.

It is established the same way everything in scientific law is - repeated observation/measurement. It is true that the laws of nature may be different at some wacky location - but until and unless we can get there to measure that wacky difference the principle of uniformitarianism is a given and a pillar of science. You may believe that things happen differently elsewhere or under some special circumstance, but until you confirm it through observation/measurement - it's just belief.

It is true, however - that science is always provisional and subject to change (often extreme change) as new data is collected. The foundation of uniformitarianism, on which science is built, is a speculative posit, i agree - however, it has been a largely valuable one.

Science can only make partial positive statements, never absolute ones. When i say the surface of the earth can't be spherical, it is due to the laws of nature that we established on its surface.

Well, no, because I was asking about you, specifically. Not the royal you

You mean the royal we? You were only asking me, and i was only responding to you. My answers are my own.

You asked why i don't study the "cube earth". I answered that question for myself, and cannot speak for anyone else. You said "exactly", indicating that you now understand why i don't. Are you still misunderstanding something?

I understand why "we" don't, but not why "you" don't.

I am a part of we, my friend!

Is it fair to say then that you simply believe that the world is not a globe?

As i keep telling you, i work very hard (and it is central to flat earth research, as well as necessary for the chance at objective study of any kind) not to believe anything!

I used to believe the world was spherical, just as we all were raised to from childhood. Now i no longer believe that, and through my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it. Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)

In your own perspective, yes

No, in reality! Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality. In reality, we can trivially demonstrate that weight is not always a force that points downwards. We can also demonstrate that it is intrinsic to the matter itself, and there is no possible matter without weight.

But it's just a belief that it applies universally in all environments, unless you've been there.

It is established the same way everything in scientific law is - repeated observation/measurement. It is true that the laws of nature may be different at some wacky location - but until and unless we can get there to measure that wacky difference the principle of uniformitarianism is a given and a pillar of science. You may believe that things happen differently elsewhere or under some special circumstance, but until you confirm it through observation/measurement - it's just that.

It is true, however - that science is always provisional and subject to change (often extreme change) as new data is collected. The foundation of uniformitarianism, on which science is built, is a speculative posit, i agree - however, it has been a largely valuable one.

Science can only make partial positive statements, never absolute ones. When i say the surface of the earth can't be spherical, it is due to the laws of nature that we established on its surface.

Well, no, because I was asking about you, specifically. Not the royal you

You mean the royal we? You were only asking me, and i was only responding to you. My answers are my own.

You asked why i don't study the "cube earth". I answered that question for myself, and cannot speak for anyone else. You said "exactly", indicating that you now understand why i don't. Are you still misunderstanding something?

I understand why "we" don't, but not why "you" don't.

I am a part of we, my friend!