Let's look at two hypothetical situations;
Scenario 1
For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and proclaim...
"The Earth is a flat because it looks flat, pictures from space are all faked because space travel is a lie created by a NASA conspiracy, gravity doesn't exist and we are all surrounded by a giant ice wall guarded by those complicit with the conspiracy. The Earth does not rotate around the sun, which by the way is only a few thousand miles up in the sky. I've come to these conclusions because my senses tell me so, just think about it" (apologies for generalising some of your theories).
You would quite rightly be branded a lunatic, nobody would take you seriously and you'd become a laughing stock. No doubt your speech would go viral on the internet and you'd achieve some fame for a few months, before inevitably fading from public consciousness and becoming a footnote somewhere on Wikipedia, a pub-quiz question.
In this scenario I would not dive right in and mention anything as a given. If I was allowed the air time, I would merely state my case as a "what if" scenario.
I'm well aware that me proclaming anything against what people have been schooled into all their lives, gives them the mass upper hand over me and like you say, I will be thought of as a lunatic from the very start, which would nullify anything I had to say from that point on.
If I walked into a pub doing the same thing, I would be classed as "that nutter" wh thinks the Earth is flat.
However, if I put out a "what if" scenario and made a point that the whole process is a "what if" then at best I could expect half of that audience to ponder my "what if's"..knowing that I am merely putting out an alternative, just like people would do in religious terms about, what if god exists but the devil doesn't, or what if the devil exists but god doesn't, or what of none of those exist and we are on our own, or what if our mother's and father's are not our real parents.
You know, stuff like that. You see, at best it creates a debate but the worst scenario is also creates heated debates and angry confrontation that leads to the whole point lost. It's natural human reaction but not because of open mindedness, it's the opposite.
You see, it's about the thoughts or belief's of any particular person that creates a debate or a fragmented debate or downright pandemonium.
You see, assuming I'm given air time, I'm immediately under the guidance of the host and that host is under the guidance of the scriptwriter and producer, etc.
It's common knowledge that the second I open my mouth about a "what if" when mentioning a flat Earth and the many things about it - I am immediately in front of an audience of eye rollers and even more so if I said, "what if gravity was atmospheric pressure."
Someone in the audience can say, ell ok, gravity has been measured and it's 9.8m/s/s, the workings are fine for it, we know it's real, show me your equations.
I can say "oh I don't have any because I class it as variable so it's a case of measurement depending on the mass of an object at whatever height." etc.
Cue the laughing.
I could say " I don't know the equation for it, I'm just saying what if. I mean, is it possible?"
The debate can go on but the best I could hope for at the end by doing this is, " well he was just putting scenarios to us, it's not like he was proclaiming it without backing it up."
The worst is being told to eff off or booed.
Why?
Because as much as you want to shout out that there's back up, that supposed back up is not physically proven except to drop something at a small height and measure that alone to come to a conclusion that in a near vacuum it would be this or that and it's gravity, even though we don't know what that force is...it can be measured.
You see, most people would boo or roll their eyes because they know what it all is. They've been schooled for long enough. So if I then went for it and said, "well what if the world is actually flat and not a globe."
I'd be laughed out of the place, including the ridiculing quips by the host, because everyone knows it's a globe, they've seen pictures and the sun rises and sets and look at space and all the rest of it.
Scenario 2
For whatever reason, you've been given a public platform to talk about your Flat Earth Theory - let's call it 'an audience with Scepti' and it's broadcast live on TV across the world. You take centre stage and state all of the things you asserted in the first scenario, only this time you follow it with actual proof..."here is the science behind my claims, as proven by various and repeated experiments" and "...here is the maths supporting my experimentation and here is how it holds up under scrutiny". You show, through rigorous research and experimentation, that the Earth is flat, and in the process you disprove a round Earth, showing how we have all been deceived for so long.
This scenario wouldn't happen but if it did and I provided proof, I would be intentionally ridiculed. Not by the audience but by the very people that gave me the platform because even if they genuinely wanted to give me that platform, I'm fairly certain that they would be told to shut it down and ridicule me and my name would be forever known as the loony with his natshit crazy ideas who is a danger to society...or whatever.
I truly believe this would be the case.
Look at the amount of people that have tried to open people's eyes. They are cast off as looney's.
Look, let's be honest and think about this.
Everything about space is geared for a globe and so is space travel and all the rest of the add on's. Do you seriously think air time would be given to anyone who had concrete proof that it was a lie?
They would allow anyone on who had no direct physical proof because there's only going to be one winner and very few people are going to take what's said, onboard due to fear of ridicule by their peers, even if they did see ruth or potential truth in it.
It's human nature to follow a trend of any kind. The masses win all the time, which means they will follow what they're told to follow.
If your theory is complete and airtight, then the scientific community would be unable to disprove it and you would completely change what is considered fact. You would be hailed as a genius, no doubt win the Nobel Prize and would received untold riches. You would be studied for hundreds/thousands of years and remembered as a visionary of great historical significance. You would be mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein.
I would win a sniper bullet to the forehead or be found hanging due to depression or something. I certainly wouldn't be recieving any star prize unless it was a ninja star jammed into me.
Right now you're just repeating scenario 1 over and over, but on a far smaller scale (this forum). Care to strive towards scenario 2 at any point? Again, I reiterate, I'm a truth seeker, and if you're interested in helping people see the truth, then help me out a little. Merely saying 'think deeper and question what you know' just isn't enough I'm afraid.
You know that I cannot physically prove what I'm saying. You believe you can physically prove what you are saying because you have mainstream science books to back you up and also the wider public to agree.
That's fine. I understand your stance.
If you appear to want to find the truth, I can only offer tid bits along with other's. I can't make you question. I can't make you decide to look at a different picture.
I could only do that with direct proof. Nobody is going to allow anyone to provide that direct proof because all of the proof's are behind a security blanket.
You have to make a choice for yourself to question just one thing. Pick the weakest argument about your globe. Question it and see where you go.
You're not argung against me and I'm not arguing against you or anyone else on here. I'm simply probing and coming up with reasons as to why the Earth is not a globe. Nobody has to take it onboard, just take it as a thought process. Use me as a thinking process. A could it be or maybe there is something in this....or simply dismiss it all and keep to the model you were comfortably brought up with, to present day.
All I say is, if you're here then you must have some kind of doubt about something's...if so, then have a go at questioning it, because simply sticking to your trusted model will gain you no ground, because it's all been heard before and is being argued against for a reason, whether that reason is legitimate to you or not.
I don't spend my time typing all this stuff just for a laugh and I'm not insane. All I'm doing is picking away. There's lot's I can learn off people on here, unfortunately I won't be learing anything new from people who push a globe model, unless they talk about something different that gives me more food for thought.
For me and this is the truth. There's so much magic involved in a globe model that it renders it not only wrong, but absolutely ludicrous. That's my personal opinion, don't take it as a personal dig at you. You are like anyone else who came here. You came with a globe in mind. I did once...not anymore and you know how strong my mind is, so if I can be changed to think alternatively or question stuff, then anyone can...but...it's entirely up to you.