@GeniUs Your original comment was:


My response was that the idea didn't explain anything at all, and for the reasons I gave, so there is no "could" about this; it's not possible. At all.
Up to God? If anything, our reality being a "simulation" would make God the 'Grand Programmer', and wouldn't explain God, but would give Him something to do, something to create.

@Pambie But it would explain everything. Your argument is that it doesn't exist which I hadn't got round to challenging at that point but if this were a simulation anything could happen, anything.
And yes 'god' would be the programmer; 'The Why Files' does an excellent video on this and he finishes off with that statement and also a twist but you'll have to watch it to find that out.

@GeniUs I've probably already seen that video, because I used to watch 'The Why Files' a lot. It's still a good channel, in spite of their embrace of some rather batty ideas lately.

@PalteseMalconFunch I think this might be the answer. It isn't about what's true, but about what "feels right" which, I have to admit, is just batshit bonkers from my perspective. I'd always rather know the truth, especially when it's upsetting or inconvenient.

@Pambie I spent a lot of time with flat earthers because I wanted to understand

@Pambie Really? You need to read all the words...

You seem to have missed the ending of "did":

(Emphasis, annotation, and phrase replacement added.)

So I said that our current flat-Earthers, the ones about whom you wrote, did NOT grow up with something.

What is that "something"?

<something> =
{ "the Earth is flat" being a generally-accepted proposition which was only changed in the last few years...}

They did NOT grow up with the notion of a flat Earth being newly/recently changed. You agree that this is ancient knowledge, so you have to agree that they did NOT grow up with the idea of a cherished belief being recently dashed.

I never said that a non-flat Earth is recent knowledge.

@SomeMichGuy What is your point here? Do you know how to make yourself clear? The fact is they're wrong.; the Earth is NOT flat.

@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP Well, they won't be reasonable or make any attempt to actually think about their beliefs, so what else have we got?

@Pambie letting someone who understands deal w/them

@Pambie Ah, so you mean continue along the great circle route:

go N along some longitude line at α degrees E or W until you hit the N pole,

then continue by going along the longitude line which is the supplementary angle in the "other" hemisphere--(180 - α) W or E‐‐toward the S.

I think "go E or W along a constant parallel of latitude and you'll be back where you started", for any point on the planet, is compelling enough...

But the shape of the gravitational potential / force around the earth is compelling, too.

@SomeMichGuy What does gravity have to do with it? Start on any random point on the surface of a sphere - any sphere - and if you keep going in one straight direction, eventually you'll get back to where you started.

@Pambie

Yes, geometry gets you that, just as measuring triangles on the surface of the Earth.

But the shape is the shape of a real object, with mass, and the shape of the mass distribution also affects gravity.

Spherical symmetry -> 1/r^2 dependence

Cylindrical symmetry -> 1/r dependence*

Cartesian "symmetry" (flat plate) -> constant field*

*For infinite cylinders or plates, this holds everywhere. For finite bodies, tjis is most true at the center.

And for any body, if one is "sufficiently close", to the surface, the field is approximately constant (equivalently, the potential surfaces close to the body exactly reproduce the shape of the body).

Of course, the lack of observations of any edge ought to be compelling, but these people aren't into reason.

@jackson55