Of course I didn't. I trust other scientists.

Okay, but you were talking about observing it and having proof. Rather, you trust people who say they've observed it.

That's my whole point, that your way of arriving at your conclusion that the earth is round is not a scientific event.

flat earther's wouldn't believe me regardless if I actually did the experiments myself

But you'd scientifically know it.

They wouldn't need to believe you, they'd just do it too and have their own observation. Whenever this stuff is commonly accessible, it isn't a matter of believing or not believing people.

(Science is not a matter of believing people. There's never a need to believe people if we're talking about science.)

The problem in modern science is that not everyone can repeat every single experiment.
In some cases most of us will have to trust in scientists.

Which isn't science.

And fortunately the elitist things that regular people don't have any access to.. the other side of the coin is they don't really matter at all, like my life and daily decisions are the same regardless of what shape the earth is.

Now, when traveling thru the cosmos is accessible to everyone, it does matter, because maybe I'll want to build a candy shop on Mars, etc.

So the things "modern scientists" tell us about, but that we can't actually measure ourselves.. are things I don't suggest caring a lot about.

Especially the flat/round earth case is a lot easier to trust than anything else, because even the church, the hardest fighter for flat earth, accepted a round earth.

This is tricky because if it's a deception, it would have been smart to have a fake-opposition leg of it who pretends to oppose it but then comes to agree.

Or the church could just gradually have been corrupted by people advancing round earth.

So I don't like using stuff like this to influence the likelihood.

Whatever ability we have to scientifically verify it should be all that tips the likelihood.

What has a conical pendulum to do with that?

It was just a hypothetical possibility, to visualize how satellites floating around up there wouldn't mean earth has to be a sphere.

Look out at the sea and you might find a few ships or another cost line.
If you take a close look, you will see that the bottom of ships/buildings on the other side is always hidden. That wouldn't make any sense on a flat earth.

I've heard people say this. I've also heard flat-earthers say the lack of ships disappearing is a problem for round earth, and that you can see them for longer than you should be able to.

This is a bit different than "everything our eyes tell us"-- I didn't think you meant one particular example.

I'd have to look into the Xs and Os of this to have a real opinion. But in any case, I've never casually observed the world to seem overtly round, even at the beach.

I will say that if it's just the bottom, that's not compelling to me. It would mean more to see the middle or the whole thing disappear, over a longer distance (which, of course, should also happen).

If it's always just the bottom we're talking about, I'm not sure that couldn't be other things like just a mirage of how our eyesight works when things are really far away on top of water.

::shrugs::

but I do know that this is the only theory that makes sense and is coherent to my observations of the world around me

To me flat earth seems totally viable. (How likely is a different question, but both round and flat seem coherent and possible to me.)

I feel like people wouldn't have ever thought the world was flat if what you're saying is right. They had ships hundreds of years ago. They had their senses, they had reasoning capacity. And the prevailing belief was flatness.

What they didn't have was "modern scientists".

So if it's obvious and intuitive to our eyes and senses, outside of what they tell us, I don't see how flat would ever have been the belief.

I think it's easy to mistake "I'm used to thinking about it this way.. I can't imagine that what they told me in school is wrong" with actually observing it.