If they were right, think of the UN logo, Antarctica wraps around the map and the north pole in the center.
People aren't allowed to freely travel below the 60th parallel, and there's a similar restriction north of the 5th parallel. Without claiming certainty of what's beyond, if there are edges, those are the areas where I would want to search.
Wife's family, she had an aunt and uncle who "gamed the system" to get the shots early.
Uncle a few months later had some heart issues that turned into a quadruple bypass surgery, and more recently had found out about blood clots in his legs. The aunt between those incidents got diagnosed with breast cancer.
The company I work for has had 3 deaths, 2 of whom were found dead at their desks in the morning. Medium size company, ~1000 employees across multiple facilities and offices.
It really is the "flat earth" position that's been silenced, it started around 2015 based on google statistics.
Now, if one searches google/youtube for flat earth topics, there's a select group of anti-flat earth people that get highlighted and groups like flat earth society (a likely shill group).
Agreed that the shape of the earth is ultimately irrelevant, we do have bigger issues to worry about.
I do love this topic for the philosophical implications, and there are scientifically valid arguments to be made for many positions (globe, flat earth, being on the interior of the globe, torroidal earth, etc). There are also many core principles in physics that are firmly and objectively established that, regardless of the shape, require that the planet be an enclosed system (biblically referred to as firmament").
For a long time I was among those that would mock "flat earthers" as being antagonistic to science, it wasn't before being confronted with evidence that showed in clear ways how the same effects that people use to "prove" a globe earth work equally well if it were a flat plane.
It's a question that ultimately cannot be concretely answered from an earthly perspective, and so, have to agree that the topic does promote divisiveness.
I'm telling you what NASA stated when asked why they hadn't gone back to the moon since the 70s. The response was that they destroyed the technology and would have to rebuild everything from scratch and that it would be simpler to land on Mars.
It's simple, seeing the moon from the earth, you know its size... the earth is supposed to be 4 times bigger, from a roughly equivalent distance which means it should occupy 4x the area of the sky, not of a relatively comparable amount of sky as the moon occupies.
If the heliocentric model is simpler and more elegant than the geocentric model, then Occam’s Razor suggests we should use the simpler model unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise.
We do know the distances to the other planets and stars. We use radar echo to figure out how far away the planets are (because we know the current speed of light) and we can measure stellar distances through parallax. Planetary mass, orbital velocity, and distance from the sun can also be calculated by tracking their motion across the sky and applying Keppler’s laws. Space probe data also helps confirm.
We presume to know because those things are influenced by the medium through which they are traveling.
Parallax of other stars has been successful one (1) time, and that was at 0.00001 of a degree.
Yes, that is the effect.
Accepting Relativity is saying the cause is that the mass is bending the space-time around that mass such that the smaller mass is attracted to the larger mass. The observations of this only work in 5% of the observed universe.
I prefer the electrostatic explanation; electrostatics provides the direction, where density and buoyancy cover the acceleration rate.
I was talking about the "earthrise on the moon" photo, I believe it uses that photo of the earth through the porthole you mention as the top image, regardless, that earth rise photo also fails because the earth should be significantly larger from the moon than that photo.
Ironically, NASA themselves says they destroyed the technology to get back to the moon and claim it would be easier for them to get to Mars than to return to the moon.
Agreed, I do understand why they keep the topic to a minimum though because half the point is to draw in normies who will see this discussion and reject the whole as "conspiracy theories and flat earthers" where the truth isn't quite so simple.
It does work, it's just not as elegant or simple for the reasons you mentioned.
They poked holes at them for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.
This also comes to the second assumption, that the distances between those bodies are known, when the best they could be called are estimates or presumptions.
(Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that the earth is stationary, just among the objectively unprovable from an earthly reference frame)
There are practical reasons why it's done the opposite, flat charts are projected onto a globe. The practical rationale is that you can only see about 20km around at any given point, and in that scale, it's all going to be a flat topographical area.
I suspected it wasn't a globe, but rather charts. I was only partially serious, and that's not a direction I could form any strong arguments one way or another, simply because of a lack of experience.
Well, you can start with the heliocentric model, where a geocentric model operates equally well. It's not been proven and could not be within a planetary reference because of the relative motion.
The heliocentric model is proffered because it is more simple to draw, and for the philosophical reasoning of not wanting to have the earth in a special position.
It's called a "shenis", bigot. /s just in case.