I've had a look at your flat earth FAQ thread and seen that your explanation is that the earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s squared.
Other flat earth forums I've been on disagree and say that's wrong and its due to density and buoyancy.
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
You keep saying "you" to me, and yet there's no way you can actually be intending this to be directed at me personally. If I'm mistaken, you're very misguided and it would be a good idea to maybe step back from the initial shock of discovering the Flat Earth Society and the accompanying knee-jerk reaction to lash out at anyone you think isn't on your team.
There's a reason I pointed you toward the thread I mentioned, and not the wiki or FAQ. We have several different FE models/concepts that people discuss here, and it seems silly to take a different stance other than embracing that and instead alienate people that do not conform to one "chosen model."
You'd clearly like to debate something here, so that's a plus. It seems like your focus is on density/buoyancy as an alternative to Gravity. You're in luck! Sceptimatic has written quite a bit about that. Check out his denpressure ideas to get some background, I think Jane has some in the compendium and you can also look at Sceptimatic's post history.
Correct, I'm using a more general definition of "You". And I'm not shocked that flat earthers and the FES exist.
The problem with having multiple models is that only one can be correct. There is absolute truth about how gravity works, how large the earth is etc. These are not matters of opinion.
Do flat earthers actually come up with a hypothesis and test it so they can rule out different ideas and find which one is correct? The thought experiment I've proposed could be done practically, has no flat earther actually done a test to check if gravity actually works like that?
The biggest problem by far with flat earth theories is there's so many conflicting ones.
On the globe model, everybody agrees how fast the earth rotates, how long a year is, exactly how the sun, earth and moon interact etc. All the explanations for how these different things work match observation exactly and are consistent with each other so all fit into a single model.
Why is there no single model to explain these phenomenon on a flat earth?
Take days and seasons for example. The explanation I see most is that the sun moves in a circle above the earth which causes the day/night cycle. Seasons are caused by the sun moving closer to the northern tropic in northern hemisphere/hemiplane summer and closer to the southern tropic in winter. But these phenomena have to be shown on two different models because the explanations cause conflict with reality if you try to have both at once.
On a flat earth map the circle the sun completes once per day in winter is longer than the circle it completes in summer.
There are only two options:
1. The sun moves at a constant speed. This isn't correct because then a full day/night cycle would be shorter in summer than in winter because the sun travels a shorter distance.
2. The sun doesn't move at a constant speed. The sun speeds up in winter and slows down in summer to travel different distances in the same amount of time, so day/night cycle length is the same throughout the year. This isn't correct because nobody has ever observed the sun moving faster or slower based on time of year.
There are only two possible explanations and neither matches observation, therefore the flat earth theory is DOA before you even get on to things like how gravity works