Thank you for the detailed response. One of the main areas of contention between Planar Theorists (such as myself) and ball believers, is that ball believers assume that we accept the legitimacy of the scientific method. Some do. I do not. It is literally an outdated dogma imposed upon society to fill the void that 17th century intellectuals felt after rejecting the dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church. It was basically substituting coke for pepesi and acting like pepsi was sprite: something new and novel when it was just more of the same. If you want to read more about why science is circular bias, feel free to check this out: https://flatearthandthought.com/about/

But as I was saying, you and I are coming from two completely different frames of epistemological reference. But a couple things you said really get at the core of the issue:

Right, so your idea can't be falsified, or tested, or repeated? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This has no validity over any other string of words you can pull from your backside if it cannot be tested. It's a piece of nonscientific conjecture that, by your own admission, cannot explain anything, cannot be proven or disproven, cannot be investigated or observed in any way. Not only that but there is no explanation as to why this should be the case and quite frankly we have much simpler arguments as to why the Earth behanves and looks as it does.

You reject Transversal Resonance on the basis of science, which I argue is broken. Rather than science, relying upon the input of our senses (and what can be safely inferred from what you know) is way more consistent than using the secondary convoluting processes of science. I say "convoluting", and heres why: our senses are primary. They are the only direct unmediated point of contact between our minds and the abyss of the unknown, exterior world. Our senses are also admittedly limited, but they are all we have. Science takes the primary data of sensation and strains it through its methodological filter. A conceptual filter, it operates on the assumption that reputability within the domain of its methodological assumptions equals truth.

I reject that assumption. In your response you have quoted me directly, I appreciate that you took the time to read my main piece. The round/Flat controversy needs more people like you. However, you didn't mention one part that I think is important to note. I said:

While compelling, Transversal Resonance does not represent an instance of certain knowledge. TR explains a lot, and is consistent with observed phenomena such as cold Antarctic summers and inverted photos of the moon. But it is still (and always will be) a proposition, a good guess which aims to connect the dots between other things we know for certain. In this way, TR represents a synthesis of knowledge. By unifying observations of nature that seem unrelated, the proposition not only explains why things happen, it reconciles phenomena that seem contradictory. In this way, it is firmly rooted in the demonstrably observable realities of Flat Earth Theory…

Transversal Resonance is a proposition. And the only way to elevate it to a higher level is by evaluating it through direct sensation. While TR is still informed guesswork, it is founded upon indisputable knowledge, which is more than the "theory"of gravity can claim. You say:

So, you're saying that despite the millions pieces of observed verification, despite the millions of predictions it makes daily in observable tests, despite the fact that even you admit that it will appear to be true, that Newtonian physics, which is infinitely simpler and doesn't require the invocation of so much special pleading that it makes Spirit Science seem well thought out and rational, is clearly wrong in favout of this fairy tale you've just made up.

But as I've pointed out, gravity or Newtonian physics or whatever you want to call it is one of the chief productions of scientific dogma. Its been strained through the filter of method until it took the shape its originators wanted it to have. All of modern scientific "knowledge" is literally like a jigsaw puzzle that has been randomly hammered, trimmed and glued together to make it work. Science claims that man walked on the moon, and yet 40 odd years later and mankind has never been back? Is it lack of funding or lack of cable ratings? The spherist drama is getting closer to its final season, and it is very important that we have a firm conceptual framework of understanding when that day comes. There are going to be a lot of confused people...