Oddbean

All the countries have unilaterally agreed to the Antarctica treaty despite claims they are mortal enemies. If that's feasible, it's feasible they have other arrangements to. These things are proof of anything. The fact is curvature is repeatedly debunked with long distance observations and radio waves. Indisputably so, that's why the topic always shifts to "but what about .... explain that." Once you get into the physics then it really starts to go downhill. Did you know there were pages that emerged which were removed from the end of Newton's Principia? Want to guess what was in them? Why would they hide those?

Most treaties are only signed because the states signing them aren't affected by the treaty. Antarctica is not relevant to anyone, so its easy to get a treaty for it. On the other hand, the US refuses to sign the treaty that limits ocean borders, despite most of the world signing, and despite China clearly violating it. It would be an easy win, but the cost of being restricted is too high. Likewise, the nuclear non proliferation treaty was mostly signed by states that lacked nukes, and exception was given to states that already had nukes - the treaty is fluff, completely inconsequential, just political theater.

As are space agencies; a wonderful way to psyphon off money from the public while providing no value in return. Goes hand in hand with the trillions the pentagon can't account for. We can argue about the semantics of politics, doesn't matter when we have the other proofs for which there is no other explanation.

Exactly, so what would exempt NASA from being another corrupted institution just like the rest of them? Just the hopes and dreams they sell us, because that's their job in order to maintain funding.

To restate my position; it appears flat because we can't find the claimed curvature. It could be anything else other than curving, because various types of measurements falsify the claim of curvature. Similarly, there is no evidence the earth is in motion. There is an equivalence in the models, in that one proposes we are moving while the other proposes that the bodies are moving around us. Both are equally valid from a kinematic and dynamic perspective in physics. I've come to the conclusion that the physics which supports heliocentrism is wrong. It's reached a dead end and it has problems, like dark matter, which geonentrism doesn't need to account for because we have an aether. That's why I believe one of the main keys to breaking this apart entirely is zero point energy, which is only possible with an infinite energy source, or the aether.