I agree but we need more solid arguments....
1) Lunar eclipses are predictable with 100% accuracy. That's because we know what causes them, we know the sizes and shapes of the bodies involved, their orbits, their rates of orbit and rotation, speeds, etc. The flat earth model has no viable explanation for the phenomenon. But I can list the next twenty-five or more lunar eclipses visible from their location, what time they'll start and end, whether they are full, partial or penumbral, and at what point in the sky they'll begin and end. No flat earth theory can do the same, because they have no real explanation for them.
In all actuality, there are many documented cases where the moon has been eclipsed by a shadow, being called a Lunar eclipse, yet, the sun is in full view to the person viewing the lunar eclipse.
This is in fact an impossibility if it is the earth's shadow passing across the lunar surface.
This brings to question what is actually the cause of a lunar eclipse and ends your argument for a globe model on this point.
2) Polar days and nights defy the flat earth model. There are as many as forty days of day or night at either polar region. This is incompatible with a flat earth model where the sun travels around and above a disc. The sun would have to occasionally travel in a small circle at the center of the disc, which would result in extremely short days in all other areas of the world. And it wouldn't work at all with a south pole that ranges the entire edge of the flat earth model. The sun would follow the outer edge and only illuminate certain areas at a time.
It does one some good to investigate the arguments that are being presented by the flat earth people. Their model gives a perfectly sound explanation for the "midnight sun" at the north pole. This is not proof for or against the flat earth, or globe model.
As for the south pole. Your argument is up against this:
- Antarctica is off-limits, so this claim cannot be independently verified - unlike the arctic midnight sun which has been experienced in regions much below the north pole
- if there was an antarctic midnight sun, then regions close to Antarctica (Chile, Argentina, New Zealand) should also experience it, but this is not the case.
- Antarctica (the ice ring) does not receive the same amount of sunlight and heat as the north pole. this is proven by the fact that Antarctica is perpetually frozen; its climate is greatly different from that of the arctic regions.
- ballers will point to a few antarctic islands (just below the Falkland islands) that receives about 20 hours of sunlight a few days in summer and claim "see, Antarctica gets 20 hours of sunlight, FE debunked". However those islands do NOT represent the whole of the ice continent Antarctica.
- The FE model allows for the outer edge of Antarctica - where those islands are - to experience sunlight.
Sorry, but I need to have something that can not be refuted this easily.
3) Constellations don't work with a flat earth model. On a flat plane, people in North and South America would be able to see the same constellations. But some are visible to one hemisphere and not to the other, and vice versa. That's because the curvature obscures the view.
Again, this does not fly. The flat earth model claims the same argument. This point is not proof of either...
“Another thing is certain, that from within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south – pole star included – sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis, a south pole star, and the Southern Cross, a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is not the case.” –Dr. Samuel Rowbotham,
4) While it might be argued that ships disappearing hull first as they grow more distant is just a mirage, the same can't be said about buildings that are half gone from the bottom up, as is the case when you look across Lake Michigan from New York with a telescope.
This point is the one I struggle with the most. The point of objects being beyond the curve. Ships sailing over the curve, the far shore being beyond vision as it is beyond the curve. Cameras simply zoom in and the ship reappears. This should not be possible if they are over the curve.
In fact, this is solid truth, there are numerous objects that are visible to the naked eye that should be impossible to see due to the curve.
The curve of the earth is not as slow as you would think. It is actually 8" in a mile.
Think about that. The earth drops away at a rate of eight inches per mile. Well, that's the first mile. Due to the surface being a ball the true calculation is (DxD)x8inches. D being the distance in miles. So at 10 miles that is 10 x 10 x 8 which equals 800 inches, or 66.667 feet.
Here is a site that shows proof that we can, in fact, see things that should not be possible due to the curve. If you want, you can look into this more.
I will say this. Even as a globe believer, something is not right with the size of the earth or the curve rate that they are giving us. I grew up on a lake and there is no way that the earth curves this fast. I can see too far, any time of year in any weather for this quick of a curve to be true.
This is why this is my most difficult fact of the shape of the earth. It is observable, measurable and testable and I can do it myself.....
NO CURVE
5) Then there's the math, which isn't debatable. Before there were government conspiracies, mathematicians in the third or fourth century BC had already figured out that the earth was a sphere using sticks, shadows, and simple math. Any elementary class could do the same experiment.
I looked into this one as well. The stick and shadow works if the sun is 92 million miles away. Flat earth theory places it more like 3000 miles away. Anyway, the stick shadow experiment only proves that the sun shines on the earth at different angles in different places. This is actually perfectly in line with the Flat earth model and these experiments are easily used to back up the flat earth math as well as the globe.
Again, we must toss this out as globe proof.
My experience with the flat earth folks is that they refuse to see reason, so it's pointless to debate it. They have an answer for everything. And no matter how shabby or ridiculous those answers are, they won't give up the ship. Everyone should do themselves a favor and not have this argument.
I agree, they have an answer for everything.... Does that not concern you?
Have you really gave them a fair shake? Looked into what they are saying?
We all have been taught that the earth was a ball. Right from the first day in school, there it was. We have been taught to ridicule the flat earth people as if they are flat heads... My whole life I have been of one mind set... the earth is round and we know this because we are more knowledgeable than in the past.
This is cognitive dissonance.
Well, I am looking into this with an open mind. I throw out anything that is not solid proof of the globe. NASA has eliminated itself as being in any a trustworthy source. We have no real pictures or video's of the globe. The military is easily controlled. The astronauts are all "Masons" which is a secretive society... The bible, as I am reluctant to say, presents a flat earth. No experiments out there prove that we are moving or that we are a ball shaped planet. Gravity is still a theory. Buoyancy would be better explanation. But the big one is that we can see objects way way way too far away for the earth to be as small and/ or round as they say.
