Yeah, that's one aspect of it. What I don't know is what this world actually is and how it came to be. Granted, those were still valid questions in the old model, but at least you were given enough breadcrumbs to partially satiate the curiosity, e.g., "oh, it's the Big Bang", "oh, it expands forever", "oh, we're just a planet", "oh, it's just pure chance", "oh, we're basically monkeys", etc. I don't even know what the word "world" refers to anymore. It's such a peculiar place to find oneself in.
Lastly, “flat” is a rather vague observation. It appears the word is used to mean “Not Spherical”. Flat is not a shape. Flat is also relative. If not a sphere what shape is it?
We don't know what shape it is, it's just the surface that we can talk about, which many of us know to be level (there are mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, etc.). We don't know how far it extends, either.
Yes, I'm aware of meniscus, and you'd be right to assume that would be my reply. We both know that surface tension would produce concave/convex water surfaces only if the area were tiny enough, as depicted. Surface tension may still occur at the edge as you increase the surface area, but the rest of the water would level out. (I may be mistaken about this.)
I may have been a bit harsh in my previous reply, but perhaps you'd reconsider answering?
I'm open to it being thousands of times larger, but that would bring its own set of problems.
I gotta ask, though:
Why would it expand? Due to the supposed expansion of the universe?
This is going to fuck up all measurements and "ancestral" observations
Could it observably expand over a few millennia?
It was 50% smaller at it's earliest.
What is this based on?
You have no posts here (https://ancaps.win/u/Questionable/?type=post), so you're "questionable"?
S/he doesn't post in ancaps, it seems. I suppose you meant https://conspiracies.win/u/Questionable/?type=post?
Wet tennis ball
Are you implying that's a good example for water curving?
There is no observable Sun at night. Does it stop existing?
Have you read the rest of what I've written regarding that point? Have you considered those aspects? Are you familiar with how optics/perspective works?
When you're flying inside a plane, can you feel any gradual changes in speed or direction?
Yes.
We can observe the spin itself. Why do we have day/night cycles?
Sure, those can both be explained by a globe Earth, but they can also be explained by the standard FE model, which covers both day/night cycles and seasons in a much more straightforward manner. To put things into perspective: globe Earth is merely "flat earth" reverse-engineered into something to, well, fit a globe hurtling through space.
It's not spinning fast enough for its size to do that. Take that wet tennis ball and rotate it at 1 rotation/min. Does water get "flung off of it"?
My point wasn't that it's flung off (I've even said so), but that if its rotation speed is so insignificant in relation to its size, such that there's no observable effect on our bodies or anything around us, why would there be a bulge at the equator? Have you read the rest of that paragraph (I've edited it slightly)?
It's weird how he pans around twice just before the plane comes into view. The first time, the people by the railing are just chatting/idling, while the second time, they're looking towards the sky, but just those people. If you pay attention the second time he begins panning, you'll notice a guy in shorts with a navy t-shirt turning his head towards those at the railing, which is exactly when "Kevin" starts turning the camera around. That guy turning around could've been a signal both to "Kevin" and to the guys at the railing, or maybe they were just the only ones that heard the plane.
No one really makes a sound while the plane is above them, except the lady that says "it's crashing" (I think) and "Kevin" that goes "Oh!". They only begin screaming when it blows up. You could argue that they were transfixed by what they were seeing, I suppose.
Then there's the way "Kevin", "My lord", speaks. It doesn't sound natural at all, nor did the other two that spoke to him. They were laughing it off, joking about not going into public buildings. I guess you could argue you never know how people react in this type of situation. Still, suspicious.
I don't know that for sure either, though it appears that most ancient civilizations knew something. In recent times, it seems to have begun in the 19th century, with people like Samuel Rowbotham and William Carpenter.
They claim Polaris stays relatively centered because it's perpendicular to Earth's imaginary (their words) rotational axis and due to the gorillions of miles that separate the two. How then do the star trails show just that tiny circle when Earth's spinning around itself just over a few hours, but Earth's orbit around the Sun has no bearing? The celestial distance covered by Earth's spin is much smaller than that of its orbit around the Sun (1000 mph vs. 66,000 mph), yet those 1000 mph result in that circular shape, but those 66,000 mph have no impact over its shape. It should look similar to a stretched slinky, not a circle, and that's without taking into account all the other movements, which is yet another thing...
Your comment is a stack of assumptions, and has nothing to do with the actuality of the matter.
You mention tests. Here's a simple one, you don't even have to move: does water bend? Are the cargo ships now at sea tilted relative to your position? Yes or no?
Yeah, heh, I used to laugh at the thought of those people. Now, after learning about all the EMF bullshit, I'm not so sure anymore.