you know... I was thinking about it, we start off with these simple observations " why are the stars inverted in the southern hemisphere " and the only explanation that actually fit the observed data is people walking around on a sphere. but that doesn't make any fucking sense if you don't know anything about *the context of the sphere itself* so for thousands of years this conversation was the status quo. P1 : " this ball model is the only model that explains the data. " P2 : "lol, that's ridiculous what keeps people from falling off the ball?" from the 18th and 19th century advances in lenses etc made it clear that the flat earth hypothesis was doomed as the logical gymnastics had to increase as observational data was gathered. but it's only the early 20th century that we get general relativity and data to *actually show* there IS a "force" holding people on the ball. iow, we get the context for the sphere people are walking around on. flat earthers are fucking retarded, they don't even understand that there is basic observational data which contradicts their model of the world. data people have been trying to explain since we were sailing around in dug out canoes, but its kinda understandable retardation if you think about the time frame it took to actually get here. they don't understand GR and to them, physicists are just priests of a new religion. lacking understanding about how the data was collected or how to verify it themselves, what recourse do they have except to ooga booga about it? View quoted note →