that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the period of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.

I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a swinging pendulum on a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force) between them). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are all lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.

that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the rate of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.

I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a swinging pendulum on a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force) between them). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are all lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.

that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the rate of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.

I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a swinging pendulum on a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force)). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are all lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.

that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the rate of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.

I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a swinging pendulum on a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force)). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are all lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.

that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the rate of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude the swinging pendulum is at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on the pendulum's latitude.

I have personally derived the math, having nothing to do with "the earth" but only using the above assumptions (a spinning sphere with an attractive force (any attractive force)). I also have personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.

that the experiment in the video shows the metal plates can be replaced, then the way we learned how elections function needs revision

In what way? The dielectric is being charged (stores "electrons"/charge), just like when rubbing a dielectric (like glass) with wool. Whether you put in new or old plates, it will discharge the same, because the charge is stored on the dielectric. This is consistent with physics. If it required the old plates to discharge, now that would be concerning.

A lot of my confidence stems from the fact that I don't trust the science

I don't trust science either. Most good scientists don't trust science. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to prove everything we have done so far as false. That is it's design goal. It is when we fail, through experiment, to prove ourselves wrong that we call it an advancement or verification, depending on if it is a new or old experiment. In other words, science never makes statements of "this is how it is." At best it says, "I tried to prove it wasn't this way, and failed."

Let me repeat, science never makes statements of truth, only statements of "couldn't prove it false." The media is the one that reports science as "truth." Scientists do not. That doesn't mean that some scientists don't, because scientists are people, and they drink their own kool-aid sometimes, but the actual science, the process of science, does not do that, and most scientists (all the good ones I know), are well aware of that and qualify their statements as "the evidence suggests" not "this is truth."

You can't understand how big this is until you harbor the idea for a few weeks or months

I have spent a lot of time in the past year looking to see if this has any validity. I am not adverse to it being possible, because I am not adverse to anything being possible. I know that I know nothing. So in my following responses please don't think my mind is closed to it. It is not.

You do not need to rely on anyone's experiments, just your own observations, scientific method and common sense.

I appreciate not relying on anyone else's experiments. That is a cornerstone of science, repeatability, AKA not relying on anyone else, i.e. critical thinking. However, both observation and "common sense" are foolish things to rely on. Of course you should observe, and you should think, but relying on your observation or thinking as being accurate means you have lost the ability to observe evidence, or think rationally to the contrary of what you are relying on. In other words, it is succumbing to your own bias, i.e. drinking your own kool-aid.

For example, I do not think I am right about physics. I do not think my observations or thinking on physics or my own experiments are right. In fact I am quite certain they are all wrong. The question is, "how wrong?" I do not in any way rely on my observations nor my thinking. If anything, I rely on them being wrong, though that really isn't the right way of putting it. In truth, I don't rely on anything. Every day is a completely unwritten page (or at least that is my attempt at life).

then I went back and tried rigid scientific method only, no assuming the sun is 7 billion miles away, or that the international space station shows "footage" of people in orbit and a curved earth below. Can't assume satellites are real just because GPS works. Etc.

It sounds to me you are assuming the opposite. That may not be the case, but that is what it sounds like to me. I have gone through Dubay's work. I didn't go through all of it, because I was able, by my own experiments to find inherent flaws from the beginning to when I stopped, which wasn't far in. It is easy to show the issues with his claims, and I will be happy to debate them with you. Pick your favorite(s), I'd much prefer to not have to go through them all.

I have offered many objections to flat earth, and so far they have all stood up to debate. But let me give my personal favorite. There is a device called a Foucault's pendulum. It is a large hanging weight that is set to swing. If you have it trace out a path (or set up a frame of reference in some other way), you can measure the rate of precession (the time it takes for the pendulum to make a full rotation). The math is easily (a relative term) derivable from what a pendulum would do if it were placed on the surface of a rotating sphere (any rotating sphere, it doesn’t have to be earth) where there was an attraction (any attractive force, it doesn’t have to be gravity) between the pendulum and the center of that sphere. The interesting thing about such a pendulum is, it can tell you what latitude you are at on such a spinning sphere. The rate of precession will be different depending on what latitude you are at.

I have personally derived the math, and personally done such a pendulum experiment. Granted, I only did it at one latitude, but the precession predicted by the math, and the experimental observation matched. I have seen people do the experiment for their own latitude and they show latitude specific results (different from my own). I have zero reason to suspect they are lying, or that I just “got lucky” that the math predicted my latitude (the math predicts very different values at different latitudes). Flat earth can’t even describe the precession at all, much less the latitude specific precession.

Never has anyone who espouses Flat Earth been able to explain those two phenomena (precession, and latitude specific precession). Until someone can, I can’t give any credence to the theory. Aside from this point of contention however, every single other point of debate always falls short similarly. People think they have discovered something new all the time, yet our current physics can describe it sufficiently. Generally far better than anything offered in opposition. That doesn’t make physics true, but it does say it isn’t wrong in the way people say it is.