These are for the most part scientific theories that have been physically proven.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. I am aware that you have made such claims. You simply haven't supported them.
I mean, by this point you must be a troll. Nobody is this stupid - but I'm gonna bite one more time anyway.
Yes, because I pointed out the falsehoods of your "proofs" I must be a trouble. Excellent round earth logic. I will go ahead and respond once more, but if you want to debate topics that aren't related to the thread, then maybe start your own thread.
Such as?
Were you trying to make a point here? Have you tested the FE explanation?
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
Ah, so now you are admitting light bends. I think you are confused about how it actually works, though.
Do you know what a FOV of 60 degrees looks like? Here's a scholarly article on what you aren't as right as you think you are: https://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf The short answer is, it is a bit more complicated than what you are trying to reduce it to, even in the RE model. It says specifically that: "The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35; 000 ft, they cannot see the curvature."
"...there are plenty of photos you can find without fisheye that prove this point." Another claim by you, yet no evidence.
According to what hypothesis? I am not aware of anyone claiming earth is the only flat body in the universe.
Again, you don't point out anything wrong. You just say it is wrong. Sorry if I don't take your word for it.
This is the best you can come up with to counter your obvious error of saying that gravity is "consisten" and "evenly propagated?"
Who said they are fake? You haven't presented any images to have a discussion about. No conspiracy needed.
No one said there was a conspiracy to generate false images of earth. Do you know what a strawman is? Because you have built one here.
Was there a point you wanted to make here?
Which can also apply to FE as it is an observer effect.
So you don't actually have a method to perform it, then. Gotcha. Again, a fun thought experiment. Too bad it ignores reality.
It is irrelevant because you don't seem to understand what the word "freely" means.
Except I did not say that "every image that could disprove the theory was taken with a fisheye lens." I am saying this one is. Your ISS examples are irrelevant, but good to see you trying to move the goalposts now that you realize your example was nonsense.
Now lets see yours. And let me make this clear - I really want to see it. I really want to see the evidence behind the Flat Earth hypothesis.
So you don't post any evidence to support your claims, but you ask me for evidence. I guess I could just imitate you and make things up, but I won't. I'd suggest if you have questions, ask them in an appropriate thread. If you want to talk about gravity (in this thread which is about gravity), then sure.
I really need to stress that you review the many innaccuracies in what you have posted. You simply do not have enough of a grasp on the RE model to make the claims you are making (most of which are entirely unsupported by you). If you want to keep insisting that your claims are true because it is "known," without actually providing evidence, then do it somewhere else.