And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?

Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?

Of course i have other conclusions and evidence from my research, but let's finish chewing what's in our mouths before taking another bite!

Due to your perception

Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.

Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.

True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!

It's yours, specifically.

No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest in the manner required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.

then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.

You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.

Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings

I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and am no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!

You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.

Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.

Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.

Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!

I'm asking about you, specifically.

So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.

Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.

Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).

Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".

It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.

So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!

::gagging noise:: spare me

Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)

And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?

Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?

Of course i have other conclusions and evidence from my research, but let's finish chewing what's in our mouths before taking another bite!

Due to your perception

Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.

Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.

True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!

It's yours, specifically.

No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest in the manner required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.

then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.

You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.

Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings

I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and was no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!

You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.

Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.

Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.

Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!

I'm asking about you, specifically.

So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.

Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.

Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).

Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".

It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.

So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!

::gagging noise:: spare me

Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)

And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?

Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?

Of course i have other conclusions and evidence from my research, but let's finish chewing what's in our mouths before taking another bite!

Due to your perception

Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.

Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.

True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!

It's yours, specifically.

No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest as required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.

then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.

You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.

Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings

I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and was no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!

You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.

Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.

Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.

Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!

I'm asking about you, specifically.

So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.

Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.

Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).

Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".

It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.

So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!

::gagging noise:: spare me

Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)

And what conclusions have you come to, and what evidence have you found to support it?

Do you just want me to repeat myself, or do you really not know after reading my previous comments where i explicitly (and repeatedly) stated exactly that?

Due to your perception

Due to my research of history, science, and the natural world directly. You can grossly call those things "perception" if you wish, but i think it's a bit off the mark.

Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.

True, and likewise just because you believe (but cannot prove yourself without abject appeal to authority) the world is spherical - does not make it so. Just because i've determined that it cannot be spherical and you would prefer that i be wrong, doesn't mean that i am incorrect!

It's yours, specifically.

No, no - you're not understanding me. Reality is ours. Our perception of that reality is only our own, but scientific law doesn't deal with perception - it deals with measurement of the objective manifest reality that we share. Water's behavior is demonstrable. I can demonstrate that its surface can't curve convexly at rest as required by the globe model - and you cannot refute that demonstration nor demonstrate that water can curve convexly in the manner it must. This isn't about perspective. It is about empericism, aka science.

then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.

You may believe/imagine anything you wish, however unless you measure it - it isn't science (empericism). I dare say it should bother you that such direct measurement plainly doesn't exist.

Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings

I doubt it, but you are free (and encouraged) to enlighten me! Keep in mind that i am steeped in the same educational system you were, and was no slouch in physics. Disagreeing with something you learned isn't the same as not understanding it!

You used "we" in the quote. Read it again, then you can try answering the question.

Apologies, we in that context was again humanity, and those who study science.

Your understanding of the laws isn't objective though, which is my point.

Laws aren't understanding - in fact, they are devoid of it. They are simply "what is". Theory is for understanding in science. We don't learn anything about why except through experiment in the scientific method - and scientific law precedes that. It is simply, "what is". The measurements are objective just like the reality they are made from, which is what makes them laws!

I'm asking about you, specifically.

So change "we" to "i" any time it offends you. You lose a little bit of my meaning, but nothing too significant for our purposes.

Then you shouldn't have a community called flat earth research, because it promotes a bias of the earth being flat.

Others have shared your view before, and i see some merit to it. However, it is the most generally accurate name for the subject that i've been able to come up with. It is not intended to encourage any bias, and my content is explicitly anti belief (aka bias).

Even a person who thinks that the earth is spherical, such as yourself i assume, is engaging with "flat earth" the subject/phenomenon/psyop/worldview and - if engaging earnestly and diligently - is certainly "researching" it while in such discussions as this. Even when you are having a discussion with someone like myself, who does not believe nor espouse a "flat earth".

It is not called flat earth research because the earth is flat - or to encourage such a view, but because the subject matter researched largely falls under, and is best known/marketed under, that header.

So called "concavers" may also feel the same as you do, and perhaps rightly so - but i still think the title/header is the most generally appropriate. I'm always open to suggestions!

::gagging noise:: spare me

Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to ;)