A large part of my engaging with flat earth research is to find such evidence and otherwise to expose my conclusions to criticism.

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

I've determined that it cannot be, through study of science, its history, and the natural world directly. It is well beyond suspicion - and has reached conclusion.

Due to your perception, yes. Just because you've determined that it cannot be spherical, doesn't mean that it is not spherical.

No! It's ours!

It's yours, specifically.

Things are obviously even worse with a sphere - any scale demonstration will show you those same laws of hydrostatics (ultimately - once the water stops moving, that is) that haven't changed in centuries.

Unless, weight causes objects to converge on the center of a mass, such as a sphere, and not in a unilateral direction, then water covering a sphere would follow the laws of hydrostatics in that particular environment.

Which could be this one.

I agree that this doesn't make it impossible that the world is spherical (i.e. that belief happens/ed to be correct), it just makes it very unlikely and would require new/amended laws in order for it to become scientifically possible.

Or perhaps you are lacking certain understandings, and the laws still apply as written.

I used "I" in the quote

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

That's the wonderful thing about laws; they are objective. It isn't a "view", it is a repeatable measurement.

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

In that specific context it was to remind you of how silly your question was. We don't research the "cube earth"

I'm asking about you, specifically. There's no "we" here, unless you're implying you work among multiple people as a team.

and we don't [shouldn't/musn't] study the shape of the earth assuming it cubic (or flat, or spherical) because such bias would prevent objective study!

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

In that context it was : humanity.

::gagging noise:: spare me

hrough my research have concluded that based on the scientific laws (i.e. repeated observation/measurement) that spherical is not a possible shape for it

But you could be wrong, that's all I'm saying. You suspect that the earth cannot be spherical, but your suspicions could be wrong due to misunderstandings of the laws of nature

Cubic, as you mentioned - is possible, but spherical is not (i.e. the spherical earth posit is unscientific / unempirical)

Can you explain a bit why one is more possible than the other?

Who cares what can be demonstrated in a perspective/imagination? I care what can be demonstrated in reality.

It's your limited view of reality. You can demonstrate how objects may behave in ultra-deep water, for example, but until you yourself have been in ultra deep water, you will never know for sure.

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.

And vice versa! You may believe your own observations are universal, but until you've been in areas where there may be key environment changes, it's just belief.

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.

We meaning who? Just you? Because when you use the term "the laws of nature," you may have your own unique view on it vs others.

Are you still misunderstanding something?

Only why you wrote the answers as the royal we, when I asked a question to you, specifically. To me, it's like you're not answering the question.

I asked why you don't research the cube earth, and you responded "That's why we don't research "the cube earth""

Who is we?

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

That is more or less demonstrable - aka, a law

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

Looks like you have, and now understand, your answer.

Well, no, because I was asking about you, specifically. Not the royal you. I understand why "we" don't, but not why "you" don't.

Indeed, if we are wrong about the earth's shape - we could easily be quite wrong about its total size as well.

Just as suspicions about the world being flat could also be wrong, as well as our current understanding of weight only acting downward.

We just study "the earth" and its shape without such biases (ideally).

Precisely!

its just the opitcal law of linear perspective that we see everyday.

As I've tried my hardest to explain, it's not something we see every day outside of the sunrise and the sunset.

Do me a favor, and try what you asked me to do. Lay your head down against the ground, and have a friend walk away from you. You'll see them get smaller and smaller, but never to the point where they dip below the horizon before fading away from your field of vision.

if that video is real

That's a great statement as well. We don't know if it's real. We have no details about it, and it's also significantly out of focus, so hard to make out exactly what we're seeing.

I've never encountered a vocal "cubist" outside the art world - have you?

Nope, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do research into it, if you are keeping an open mind about the possibilities of what the shape would be. It seems by your actions that you suspect the earth is flat, if you choose not to devote time to research other shapes.

You research the earth and its shape

Exactly!

sun doesn't go behind the curve

What curve? I'm talking about on a flat earth.

I have been looking up shots of sunrises and sunsets, and every single one shows the sun sinking below the horizon or rising above the horizon.

Thanks for sending the link though! Do we know where this footage was taken, or how high up they were?

And what you're looking at is the sun falling below the horizon, as I've been describing. However, you are suggesting that at high altitudes the sun simply fades.

Happy to have you share a link! I trust that you know where to find a good example, because I've never heard of this before.

Yes, and I sent you a video of a sunset from the top of a mountain. How high must you need to be to witness the sun fading away? Do you have a rough altitude?

Why is it that only you can see it then? Why is it that everyone else sees the sun fall below the horizon, but you see it fade in the distance?

Do you see how this might just raise more questions than answers?

Here is a sunrise and sunset showing our base level behavior, where the sun rises above and then falls below the horizon

Here is a video of a sunset from a mountaintop, with the sun falling below the horizon, not fading in the distance. No change with higher altitiude

This is how the sun behaves. Other objects, like planes and my friend, will get smaller as they get further away. The sun, however, does not.

Do you have anything different to share that counteracts these examples?

I mean there are many more options than spherical, concave, and flat, of course. Have you done research into a cuboid earth?

It's because what you're saying is demonstrably false.

Until you continue to see them after this

You were in search of a completely accurate scale model of the earth

You've misunderstood me. I was not looking for a completely accurate scale model. I was only looking for one without significant error (such as the relation of landmasses to one another, or relative shape of the landmasses). It does not have to be completely 100% accurate. There is a middle ground between 100% accurate, and 20% accurate.

The conversation about antarctica sort of molded into this, but there is a lot that you seemed to misunderstand in that conversation as well.

So, effectively, much is left "ignored," because you comment on your own misunderstandings, and when I correct you and try and help you realize what I am intending to say, you sort of just quiet down, hence why I started the threads.

Here's a link: https://communities.win/c/flatearthresearch/p/17sOnl6c42/x/c/4Z8kfcZzICu

I encourage you to read through with fresh eyes, and see if you can get a better grasp on what I was looking for.

I watch the sun rise every day, because I can watch it from my apartment. The sun never just “fades away,” or “fades in” for a sunrise. It’s always sinking below the horizon, or always rising out of the horizon. It also keeps a relatively consistent size throughout the day, if anything only appearing slightly larger at the horizon.

No other object performs this way

Why would I look up a video when I can see it with my own eyes that you’re not correct here?

Have you done research into shapes other than flat earth?

Wanna make a bet on it?

Our discussion about a scale model of the earth comes to mind

As well as our talks about Antarctica

I’m not asking what you know. I’m asking what you suspect.

What other one?

You're still not getting it.

I asked you if your heart pumps blood

You’re still not understanding me.

I’m asking you if your heart pumps blood

Do you have trouble understanding the question?

I asked you if your heart pumps blood

I asked you if your heart pumps blood