unlike religion or mainstream science, we aren't afraid to say that we don't know rather than make something up.
This had me in stitches. I refer you to Tausami and his marvellous explain-it-all aether theory.
If a mainstream physicist comes out with a new theory, are you, as a proponent of mainstream physics, duty-bound to from that point on advocate and support their theory? Of course not. There are many different theories on the same topic across science. You can't be expected to actively support them all. Why do you hold us to that standard. I'm not saying that Tausami is wrong, I'm just saying that flat-earth theory is a rich scientific front and I've not had the chance to delve into the particulars of his theory.
To follow your line of logic means you should be treating the round earth model as just as possible as any of the flat earth models. But strangely, I don't see that happening.
When I began my quest for determining the shape of the earth I forced myself to "forget" my round-earth upbringing and view that problem as objectively as I could. So, yes, there was a time when I had to treat the round and flat earth theories as equally possible. As well as a few other theories I was weighing them against, such as hollow-earth theory. Over time, all evidence I encountered could be more easily and eloquently explained by flat-earth theory. Not to mention that flat-earth theory is intuitive while round-earth and hollow-earth theories are not.
I trust that anyone who can look at the problem objectively will come to the same conclusion.
More easily and eloquently explained by Flat Earth theories? Are you kidding me?
Conventional RET gravity explains the movements of the sun, the movements of the moon, the seasons, the reason we stick to the earth, and the reason why the earth would be round.
FET currently has no agreed explanation for the movements of the sun or moon, no explanation of the cause of seasons, no explanation of why the earth is flat as opposed to any other shape, and its explanation of why we stick to the ground has holes you could drive a bus through (such as why is there a different accelerative force felt in different parts of the world?)
Conventional RET explains why the sun appears to set and rise, why ships sink over the horizon, and why a beam of neutrinos fired into the ground are detected in another country.
FET requires unproven and undemonstrable physics to be at work for the first two things, and has no explanation at all for the third.
But sure, if you want to redefine what easy and eloquent mean, then that's what you'll need to do to in order to say that FET has the edge in that respect. Please don't treat the readers as if they're stupid, Pongo.