Relative simplicity of the round earth

It is possible to come up with a model to describe all observations of science and have it fit a flat earth, even if it fits much better to a round earth. This can even be done without any conspiracies. All you have to do is modify the geometry of space to allow movement to work the way you want it to. For instance, objects try to fall downward due to gravity, but quickly moving objects, including light, will get pushed upwards and toward the North pole (in the center), allowing orbits and explaining why ships disappear over the horizon. Past the equator, space is warped in such a way that things are bigger and move faster, and close enough to the pole, objects are fast enough to warp to the others side. If more effort is spent, a model like this could explain everything.

One can do the same thing for a round earth, a hollow earth where people live inside it, a cubic earth, or many other shapes. To convert from one model to another, one can apply a geometric transformation that maps the points on the earth to the correct place, and adjust physics accordingly.

While the flat earth idea is interesting to think about, I think that the round earth model makes a lot more sense. Most astronomical phenomena can be described with a round earth in ways that laboratory experiments and mathematical models can verify, and such models are much simpler for things like predicting the locations of the planets than any flat earth model I can think of. There is some possible hand-waving, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy, but those things are not necessary for understanding our own solar system in isolation.

With this in mind, what drives you to prefer the flat earth model over the round earth model?

It is possible to come up with a model to describe all observations of science and have it fit a flat earth

I'm not convinced that this is possible, since nobody here has managed to come up with such a model so far.

With this in mind, what drives you to prefer the flat earth model over the round earth model?

I also would like to know that.

Space would have to have very peculiar properties if the Earth is flat. It would essentially have to be capable of creating the illusion that the Earth is round. That's what flat Earth arguments amount to: the evidence does suggest that the Earth is round but there are unspecifiable processes at work that make it seem this way. If it was shown that the Earth is indeed flat I would want to know why it is that the universe has conspired to make it seem round. Everything we see suggests that it's round. It's the most logical and elegant model to explain the horizon, the angular size of the sun, the movement of the sun and stars etc. If I found out that the Earth is flat, that would make me a little paranoid.

Since all the evidence does suggest that the Earth is round, why do people believe it's flat? That's been asked so many times here and never really answered.

dual earth theory explains everything, round earthers have just had more time to iron out the flaws, and it's somehow acceptable for them to make up new things to explain away gaping flaws, while observational evidence is disallowed for flat earthers.
you hold each theory to different standards. flat earth theory makes more sense objectively, you just refuse to look at the matter without insisting the earth has to be round.

dual earth theory explains everything, round earthers have just had more time to iron out the flaws, and it's somehow acceptable for them to make up new things to explain away gaping flaws, while observational evidence is disallowed for flat earthers.
you hold each theory to different standards. flat earth theory makes more sense objectively, you just refuse to look at the matter without insisting the earth has to be round.

No, dual Earth theory explains nothing. It doesn't also explain how the freaking teleportation works and what are evidences for it.
I like this topic - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.0#.VQwkh45y1co

It is possible to come up with a model to describe all observations of science and have it fit a flat earth

No, it isn't.

This can even be done without any conspiracies.

No, it can't. There is $180b a year satellite industry which is part of a $300b a year space industry.

All you have to do is modify the geometry of space to allow movement to work the way you want it to.

So instead of modifying a model to fit reality, you want to modify reality to fit the model?  It doesn't work like that.

dual earth theory explains everything, round earthers have just had more time to iron out the flaws, and it's somehow acceptable for them to make up new things to explain away gaping flaws, while observational evidence is disallowed for flat earthers.
you hold each theory to different standards. flat earth theory makes more sense objectively, you just refuse to look at the matter without insisting the earth has to be round.

Name three things that are made up, with no evidence or mathematical proofs, to fill gaps in the Round Earth model.
The first one you will name will probably be Dark matter, this has mathematical proof and observational evidence of the effects, but I will give you this one just to be nice.
The second one you will probably name is Gravity, you cannot have this just because we do not have the all the exact details of what actually causes it.  There are tons of data supporting this, tons of models based off of it that predict celestial movements.  It is a fact of existence.  So no, Gravity will not make it to your list and be accepted.
The third one you will probably name is Space flights/pictures of Earth from orbit/pictures of other celestial bodies.  You cannot have this either.  You require a global conspiracy of such epic proportions, involving so many different agencies, that it simply could not exist in the today's free access to information.  So no you cannot have those either. 
Moon landings, well I don't personally believe they are fake, but that's beside the point.  That has nothing to do with the shape of Earth. 
So I will start your list
1. Dark Matter (allowing this under protest and it really has nothing to do with Round Earth vs Flat Earth)
2. ??
3. ??

Now I also call on someone to give me a list of made up things to make Flat Earth work.  I want to set a couple of rules to make it civil.  No more than 10 items, no mentioning of magic, random things that only a few people believe, lets stickl to 2 areas.  Flat Earth and Dual Flat Earth.  Just the obviously made up stuff.

Quote

All you have to do is modify the geometry of space to allow movement to work the way you want it to.

So instead of modifying a model to fit reality, you want to modify reality to fit the model?  It doesn't work like that.

It works in a way: it's just tweaking frames of reference. It's used in applied maths all the time. If you're on a train, you can treat it as a moving train, or a stationary train with the Earth moving backwards underneath it.
So, to create a coherent Flat Earth model, you alter the frame of reference similarly. The first step is to find a model with a stationary, geocentric Earth (which is basic alteration of frames of reference): in this case, you can describe, for example, the effect of the Coriolis effect but, crucially, you can't give any kind of explanation for it beyond "The atmosphere spins around the Earth because I say so."
Then you just have to find an isomorphism between a sphere and a disk. The easiest way to do that would be to start with spherical polar coordinates, keep r fixed, and combine theta and phi into the 2-D theta in some unique way. Theoretically, that should be possible: and then you just do the same operation to everything.
That gives you a model with a flat disk and exactly the behavior we observe, it just lacks explanations for how things work. It also ensures the Earth is the floor of the universe and absolutely nothing exists below.

So, strictly speaking, you can come up with such a model by applying a few mathematical operations, it just doesn't explain anything, it just says "This is how it is."
A train's a good example. The behavior there is exactly like the train's stationary and the Earth's moving back past it at the speed you think the train's going at: but what could explain that kind of motion? We know the train can move, with the engine, but we don't know of any way for the train to be perfectly still while the Earth whirls backwards.

It would essentially have to be capable of creating the illusion that the Earth is round.

Exactly. While such a model is possible, and quite interesting in a hypothetical sense, all it would really do is over-complicate things, since the best way of calculating astronomical effects would be to transform everything to a round earth, do the calculations, and transform everything back.

I'm not convinced that this is possible, since nobody here has managed to come up with such a model so far.

Like BiJane's example, take any animation which is physically accurate and takes place on a round earth. Then, for each frame, make small scaling transformations to make Earth a perfect sphere except for local terrain (rather than an oblate spheroid or geoid), create a sphere centered on the south pole whose radius is the diameter of Earth, and do an inversion of space about that sphere, and Earth ends up being an infinitely big flat disk where underground is below, and space is above it.

Quote

With this in mind, what drives you to prefer the flat earth model over the round earth model?

I also would like to know that.

If I had to guess, it would be that they believe that they could possibly be right. If they are wrong, no harm is done to them because they (or most of them) are anonymous. If they are right, they are on to a gigantic government conspiracy that has tricked everyone else, which is quite an exciting prospect. So, if there is any possibility that the earth could actually be flat (a big "if"), secretly believing it is and posting about it anonymously can only help. This may also be why the round earth is the one that has the burden of proof here. Of course, this is only a guess.

EDIT: According to the model I mentioned, all astronomical phenomena would be squashed close to a single point, and Earth's gravity would not be consistently downwards. Oops. I think BiJane's transformation is better.

dual earth theory explains everything, round earthers have just had more time to iron out the flaws, and it's somehow acceptable for them to make up new things to explain away gaping flaws, while observational evidence is disallowed for flat earthers.
you hold each theory to different standards. flat earth theory makes more sense objectively, you just refuse to look at the matter without insisting the earth has to be round.

Dual Earth theory is little more than a squashed round Earth.

The term "round Earther" is ridiculous. That's most of the human race and most of the people who have ever lived.

What gaping flaws? This is something I read time and time again, that there are some massive problems with the idea that the Earth is round. What are these problems, I don't know of any.

How does the Earth being flat make more sense? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is flat and the bizarre logical gymnastics people resort to on this site show that there isn't even a viable working model for a flat Earth. There is the round Earth model and there are a bunch of cockeyed ad hoc notions that have been thrown together in an attempt to make the idea of Flat Earth not seem completely preposterous.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 20, 2015, 06:22:47 AM

dual earth theory explains everything, round earthers have just had more time to iron out the flaws, and it's somehow acceptable for them to make up new things to explain away gaping flaws, while observational evidence is disallowed for flat earthers.
you hold each theory to different standards. flat earth theory makes more sense objectively, you just refuse to look at the matter without insisting the earth has to be round.

Name three things that are made up, with no evidence or mathematical proofs, to fill gaps in the Round Earth model.
The first one you will name will probably be Dark matter, this has mathematical proof and observational evidence of the effects, but I will give you this one just to be nice.
The second one you will probably name is Gravity, you cannot have this just because we do not have the all the exact details of what actually causes it.  There are tons of data supporting this, tons of models based off of it that predict celestial movements.  It is a fact of existence.  So no, Gravity will not make it to your list and be accepted.
The third one you will probably name is Space flights/pictures of Earth from orbit/pictures of other celestial bodies.  You cannot have this either.  You require a global conspiracy of such epic proportions, involving so many different agencies, that it simply could not exist in the today's free access to information.  So no you cannot have those either. 
Moon landings, well I don't personally believe they are fake, but that's beside the point.  That has nothing to do with the shape of Earth. 
So I will start your list
1. Dark Matter (allowing this under protest and it really has nothing to do with Round Earth vs Flat Earth)
2. ??
3. ??

Now I also call on someone to give me a list of made up things to make Flat Earth work.  I want to set a couple of rules to make it civil.  No more than 10 items, no mentioning of magic, random things that only a few people believe, lets stickl to 2 areas.  Flat Earth and Dual Flat Earth.  Just the obviously made up stuff.

i say again "you hold each theory to different standards."
gravity, air, dark matter, all of that is based on observational evidence alone. you don't know a thing about what you call gravity beyond what its effects are. it is the same for aether. we observe consequences, and deduce facts and traits from that.
your differing standard of evidence is closed-mindedness. you assume you must be right and what you deduce has to be accurate, when it is only one explanation based upon numerous assumptions which are accepted only to explain those observations.
flat earth theory requires only the singular aether, for which there is only more evidence. so much more is explained with the one entity, than the multitude of fantasies round earthers believe in.

Our understanding of gravity comes from centuries of thought and debate, including input from several genius'. There are well established equations describing its behaviour.

Hypothesised aether is proposed by a few people, none of whom have evidenced any qualifications, on an obscure internet forum. No mathematical models of its behaviour have been published as far I'm aware.

The two cannot be considered to have equal validity.

Our understanding of gravity comes from centuries of thought and debate, including input from several genius'. There are well established equations describing its behaviour.

Hypothesised aether is proposed by a few people, none of whom have evidenced any qualifications, on an obscure internet forum. No mathematical models of its behaviour have been published as far I'm aware.

The two cannot be considered to have equal validity.

and yet aether explains everything gravity does (due to its property of being attracted to itself, and of generating matter) and doesn't require unexplained assumptions about curving spacetime and all that bs which no scientist can explain.
you have made my point. aether answers all the questions, but you reject it because you'd rather cling to gravity and reject any contrary viewpoint no matter what.

why do you believe in gravity over aether? try to answer with more than blind obedience.

Well no not exactly there Jrowe.  We do base theories off of observational effects, then develop models, then test those models and see if they agree with predicted results.  Everything is based off of observational effects. 
Effect observed:
something falls to the ground, question is asked why.
Postulate theories as to why.
Test those theories.
Whichever ones that can predict results accurately are tested further.
So gravity won out, then its predicted effects started working out for much more things, until we came to very large scale movements, right now Dark matter is a theory that actually works very well to explain movements of galaxies.  Dark matter is not a local effect observed, When I say local I mean our little area we call the Solar system.  All movements of observed bodies in our solar system work with gravity calculations, we can predict movements very very accurately. 
Actually gravity started out as a small theory then we figured out that it explained so much more, now it is considered one of the 4 main forces in the universe. 
Aether, as it stands right now, is needed to provide a mechanism for universal acceleration, which actually cannot work due to the light speed barrier.  Yes Special relativity says you can constantly accelerate and never hit light speed, but as you near the speed of light you need more and more force to continue the same rate of acceleration and at the point of getting mass to get to light speed you have to have infinite (energy) force and mass.  So for each tick on the scale to light speed the aether would have to push harder on the Earth to maintain acceleration, once it gets to a certain point you just wouldn't be able to maintain the acceleration needed to simulate gravity.  So within 1 year no force would be able to maintain the acceleration needed.

Also I have tried to tell you this before, but using one thing with so many properties to explain so many different effects that have nothing to do with one another is not a stronger argument, its a failed one.  Gravity at its heart is basically the attraction of matter to matter, the more matter there, the stronger the attraction is.  Your aether bends light perfectly and differently depending on the need, it pushes the Earth upward and increases its energy perfectly to maintain a steady acceleration, it breaks the light speed barrier, it forms a barrier to hold air in, it forms whirlpools that move with the observer to hide the Flat Earth "truth", it causes us to not be able to see things far away unless it wants us to, it causes things to appear to melt into the horizon, etc.  ( I didn't include some of your more colorful properties).

My standard of evidence is correct, if it can be tested, experiments reproduced, predict outcomes, be independently verified, then yeah I call it evidence.  If it is just something you want to say is there, with no way to test for it or its effects, it cannot predict anything, then no it is not evidence. 
I am not closed minded, and you know this very well.  I have enjoyed seeing you work on your theory, and trying to point you in a good direction to try to get your model working.  You are not there yet, hence I have steered clear of messing with your current Dual Earth hypothesis, even given you warnings of things to try to get figured out before someone just started tearing apart your ideas.  I like to see your ideas come to light, I do not think you are crazy like many others here do.  But to say I am closed minded, just isn't a fair or truthful assessment.

Fantasy is made up, you decide what constitutes fantasies, evidence or just saying it is?

I never assume I must be right, I look at the evidence and test things out for myself. 
The arrogance it takes to think that so few clearly closed minded people must be so much smarter than 99% of the rest of the Earth's population is astounding to me.  We try to present evidence, we are scoffed at and told we are lying, we are brainwashed, we are stupid.  No counterarguments made, just attacks at our reasoning skills and intelligence level.  Those are the tools of small closed minded people. 

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 20, 2015, 03:46:05 PM

Our understanding of gravity comes from centuries of thought and debate, including input from several genius'. There are well established equations describing its behaviour.

Hypothesised aether is proposed by a few people, none of whom have evidenced any qualifications, on an obscure internet forum. No mathematical models of its behaviour have been published as far I'm aware.

The two cannot be considered to have equal validity.

and yet aether explains everything gravity does (due to its property of being attracted to itself, and of generating matter) and doesn't require unexplained assumptions about curving spacetime and all that bs which no scientist can explain.
you have made my point. aether answers all the questions, but you reject it because you'd rather cling to gravity and reject any contrary viewpoint no matter what.

why do you believe in gravity over aether? try to answer with more than blind obedience.

I made a poll few hours ago in Warsaw. The questions were...

(of course it's a translation, I can post original questions)

"What would you choose?
Gravity - thing that explains everything and is a well-proved, mathematically correct and great in its simplicity idea told by scientist who worked A LOT on its concept.
Or...
Aether - thing that explains everything, has no evidence at all and is stated to explain sunsets on a flat-Earth model basing on bendy-light stuff.
So?"

Well no not exactly there Jrowe.  We do base theories off of observational effects, then develop models, then test those models and see if they agree with predicted results.  Everything is based off of observational effects. 
Effect observed:
something falls to the ground, question is asked why.
Postulate theories as to why.
Test those theories.
Whichever ones that can predict results accurately are tested further.
So gravity won out, then its predicted effects started working out for much more things, until we came to very large scale movements, right now Dark matter is a theory that actually works very well to explain movements of galaxies.  Dark matter is not a local effect observed, When I say local I mean our little area we call the Solar system.  All movements of observed bodies in our solar system work with gravity calculations, we can predict movements very very accurately. 
Actually gravity started out as a small theory then we figured out that it explained so much more, now it is considered one of the 4 main forces in the universe. 
Aether, as it stands right now, is needed to provide a mechanism for universal acceleration, which actually cannot work due to the light speed barrier.  Yes Special relativity says you can constantly accelerate and never hit light speed, but as you near the speed of light you need more and more force to continue the same rate of acceleration and at the point of getting mass to get to light speed you have to have infinite (energy) force and mass.  So for each tick on the scale to light speed the aether would have to push harder on the Earth to maintain acceleration, once it gets to a certain point you just wouldn't be able to maintain the acceleration needed to simulate gravity.  So within 1 year no force would be able to maintain the acceleration needed.

Also I have tried to tell you this before, but using one thing with so many properties to explain so many different effects that have nothing to do with one another is not a stronger argument, its a failed one.  Gravity at its heart is basically the attraction of matter to matter, the more matter there, the stronger the attraction is.  Your aether bends light perfectly and differently depending on the need, it pushes the Earth upward and increases its energy perfectly to maintain a steady acceleration, it breaks the light speed barrier, it forms a barrier to hold air in, it forms whirlpools that move with the observer to hide the Flat Earth "truth", it causes us to not be able to see things far away unless it wants us to, it causes things to appear to melt into the horizon, etc.  ( I didn't include some of your more colorful properties).

My standard of evidence is correct, if it can be tested, experiments reproduced, predict outcomes, be independently verified, then yeah I call it evidence.  If it is just something you want to say is there, with no way to test for it or its effects, it cannot predict anything, then no it is not evidence. 
I am not closed minded, and you know this very well.  I have enjoyed seeing you work on your theory, and trying to point you in a good direction to try to get your model working.  You are not there yet, hence I have steered clear of messing with your current Dual Earth hypothesis, even given you warnings of things to try to get figured out before someone just started tearing apart your ideas.  I like to see your ideas come to light, I do not think you are crazy like many others here do.  But to say I am closed minded, just isn't a fair or truthful assessment.

Fantasy is made up, you decide what constitutes fantasies, evidence or just saying it is?

I never assume I must be right, I look at the evidence and test things out for myself. 
The arrogance it takes to think that so few clearly closed minded people must be so much smarter than 99% of the rest of the Earth's population is astounding to me.  We try to present evidence, we are scoffed at and told we are lying, we are brainwashed, we are stupid.  No counterarguments made, just attacks at our reasoning skills and intelligence level.  Those are the tools of small closed minded people.

aether explains everything gravity's used to explain, so why accept gravity over?
it also isn't needed for universal acceleration, under dual earth theory. there's a thick current between each side of the earth (which caused the earth's created), gravity is simply a measure of how the aether above us attracts us downwards to it.

aether is the same as any other medium. mediums refract light when it passes through it. whirlpools are simply a matter of aether being attracted to aether (a fundamental property), and clearly different densities would be able to move in, from the sides of the earth, faster. you can list all the effects of the traits, but there are only maybe two there. one, it has several densities (trivial). two, it is attracted to itself. everything is just a consequence of those.
it's rather elegant, really.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 20, 2015, 03:59:28 PM

Well no not exactly there Jrowe.  We do base theories off of observational effects, then develop models, then test those models and see if they agree with predicted results.  Everything is based off of observational effects. 
Effect observed:
something falls to the ground, question is asked why.
Postulate theories as to why.
Test those theories.
Whichever ones that can predict results accurately are tested further.
So gravity won out, then its predicted effects started working out for much more things, until we came to very large scale movements, right now Dark matter is a theory that actually works very well to explain movements of galaxies.  Dark matter is not a local effect observed, When I say local I mean our little area we call the Solar system.  All movements of observed bodies in our solar system work with gravity calculations, we can predict movements very very accurately. 
Actually gravity started out as a small theory then we figured out that it explained so much more, now it is considered one of the 4 main forces in the universe. 
Aether, as it stands right now, is needed to provide a mechanism for universal acceleration, which actually cannot work due to the light speed barrier.  Yes Special relativity says you can constantly accelerate and never hit light speed, but as you near the speed of light you need more and more force to continue the same rate of acceleration and at the point of getting mass to get to light speed you have to have infinite (energy) force and mass.  So for each tick on the scale to light speed the aether would have to push harder on the Earth to maintain acceleration, once it gets to a certain point you just wouldn't be able to maintain the acceleration needed to simulate gravity.  So within 1 year no force would be able to maintain the acceleration needed.

Also I have tried to tell you this before, but using one thing with so many properties to explain so many different effects that have nothing to do with one another is not a stronger argument, its a failed one.  Gravity at its heart is basically the attraction of matter to matter, the more matter there, the stronger the attraction is.  Your aether bends light perfectly and differently depending on the need, it pushes the Earth upward and increases its energy perfectly to maintain a steady acceleration, it breaks the light speed barrier, it forms a barrier to hold air in, it forms whirlpools that move with the observer to hide the Flat Earth "truth", it causes us to not be able to see things far away unless it wants us to, it causes things to appear to melt into the horizon, etc.  ( I didn't include some of your more colorful properties).

My standard of evidence is correct, if it can be tested, experiments reproduced, predict outcomes, be independently verified, then yeah I call it evidence.  If it is just something you want to say is there, with no way to test for it or its effects, it cannot predict anything, then no it is not evidence. 
I am not closed minded, and you know this very well.  I have enjoyed seeing you work on your theory, and trying to point you in a good direction to try to get your model working.  You are not there yet, hence I have steered clear of messing with your current Dual Earth hypothesis, even given you warnings of things to try to get figured out before someone just started tearing apart your ideas.  I like to see your ideas come to light, I do not think you are crazy like many others here do.  But to say I am closed minded, just isn't a fair or truthful assessment.

Fantasy is made up, you decide what constitutes fantasies, evidence or just saying it is?

I never assume I must be right, I look at the evidence and test things out for myself. 
The arrogance it takes to think that so few clearly closed minded people must be so much smarter than 99% of the rest of the Earth's population is astounding to me.  We try to present evidence, we are scoffed at and told we are lying, we are brainwashed, we are stupid.  No counterarguments made, just attacks at our reasoning skills and intelligence level.  Those are the tools of small closed minded people.

aether explains everything gravity's used to explain, so why accept gravity over?
it also isn't needed for universal acceleration, under dual earth theory. there's a thick current between each side of the earth (which caused the earth's created), gravity is simply a measure of how the aether above us attracts us downwards to it.

aether is the same as any other medium. mediums refract light when it passes through it. whirlpools are simply a matter of aether being attracted to aether (a fundamental property), and clearly different densities would be able to move in, from the sides of the earth, faster. you can list all the effects of the traits, but there are only maybe two there. one, it has several densities (trivial). two, it is attracted to itself. everything is just a consequence of those.
it's rather elegant, really.

BECAUSE GRAVITY IS WELL-PROOVED FOR FUCK SAKE!

Unfortunately, I will have to disagree on this one. While gravity is well supported by evidence and mathematically precisely, predicts several effects correctly without hand-waving, it has not been proven, and people have had to redefine its effects several times. The Newtonian formula for gravity is only an approximation for reality, while gravity is better described by the general theory of relativity. Even that is an approximation, though, because it fails to account for quantum mechanics, which has not yet been unified with gravity.

Due to the complexity of the math involved in precisely describing a lot of astronomical and geological effects that depend on a round earth, you either have to do the math yourself and measure things in the sky with your own equipment, or you have to trust that scientists have already done so honestly. Otherwise, just saying the math works out is about as effective as saying that the aether explains everything. The problem is that the whole point of the Flat Earth Society is that its members do not trust the scientific method, or they do not trust that the scientific method has been carried out properly in regards to the shape of the Earth and everything that depends on it.

As I have stated before, with enough hand-waving, it should be possible to build up to the conclusion that the flat Earth model is consistent with all observations, especially when some observations can be ignored as part of a conspiracy. Therefore, perhaps it would be better to convince them not that the Earth is round, but that a round earth model is consistent with everyone's observations without fail. Maybe understanding the science better will persuade some people to silently change their mind and leave. This may have happened already. I haven't been following the forum for very long.

Unfortunately, I will have to disagree on this one. While gravity is well supported by evidence and mathematically precisely, predicts several effects correctly without hand-waving, it has not been proven, and people have had to redefine its effects several times. The Newtonian formula for gravity is only an approximation for reality, while gravity is better described by the general theory of relativity. Even that is an approximation, though, because it fails to account for quantum mechanics, which has not yet been unified with gravity.

Due to the complexity of the math involved in precisely describing a lot of astronomical and geological effects that depend on a round earth, you either have to do the math yourself and measure things in the sky with your own equipment, or you have to trust that scientists have already done so honestly. Otherwise, just saying the math works out is about as effective as saying that the aether explains everything. The problem is that the whole point of the Flat Earth Society is that its members do not trust the scientific method, or they do not trust that the scientific method has been carried out properly in regards to the shape of the Earth and everything that depends on it.

As I have stated before, with enough hand-waving, it should be possible to build up to the conclusion that the flat Earth model is consistent with all observations, especially when some observations can be ignored as part of a conspiracy. Therefore, perhaps it would be better to convince them not that the Earth is round, but that a round earth model is consistent with everyone's observations without fail. Maybe understanding the science better will persuade some people to silently change their mind and leave. This may have happened already. I haven't been following the forum for very long.

We know the gravity is here and how it works, but we don't know where it comes from. That doesn't have to mean that gravity hasn't yet been proven.

Fair enough. The fact that massive objects tend to attract each other at a rate very similar to Newton's law of gravitation is as good as proven everywhere else except here. Especially when that simple fact can approximate the movements of all planets and moons in the solar system to a high degree of accuracy. It explains how planets can have elliptical orbits through its math, all because of one simple rule which is a very good approximation of reality: Particles with mass attract each other with a force proportional to their masses multiplied together divided by the square of their difference.

One argument often proposed is that ideas surrounding gravity have been around longer than the idea proposed by JRoweSkeptic surrounding JRoweSkeptic, which is why it gains favor. This argument does seem to hold water, as there have been several controversial scientific hypotheses that have taken a while for people to accept as more accurate than the previous theories, such as general relativity. The issue is that it is not the only advantage. The mathematical approximation of gravity is very precise and simple, having been observed in multiple contexts. The aether,  on the other hand, can not be described as only doing one thing. To us, it seems like the aether is doing whatever is convenient to match observations.

EDIT: I think my curiosity has been satisfied. I've got some ideas as to why people here believe the Earth is flat, and I don't think there is anything I can do to fix that believe, nor is there much of a benefit to doing so. I will likely be an inactive user from now on.