First we debunk the "globe proofs" offered by LiveScience. Then we prove the earth is flat.

Maybe the Earth is shaped like a potato chip.

The earth is flat but the Earth isn't?

Begging the question once – Earth shadow on the face of the sun

Begging the question twice – the fact that Earth is rotating

Begging the question thrice – “Aristotle correctly intuited” which makes this not a proof but a good guess which is confirmed with a proof to be found elsewhere

Stereotype fallacy and false dichotomy – “if the earth is a disk... etc”

Again, let's state this another way:

'The eclipse is caused by a celestial body known as the black sun obscuring the sun/moon.'

Your objection is valid, but the reason for your objection probably is not.

From a height of 6 feet above sea level, the horizon "should" indeed be at a distance of 3 miles.

And yet here we clearly see the horizon way beyond 10 miles from an observer height of 5 feet

My personal favourite:

And OMG they did it! Look at that earth curve



Amazing. Let's just take a look at the full video they recorded and cherry picked the above awesome earth curve shot from. Oh dear, what a fraudulent piece of trash this is.

This is all too much.

What is the flat earth reason for this?




Equator

It’s perspective.. from the outer boundaries aka Southern Hemisphere (it’s not a sphere but it’s the outside of a gigantic circle) you see the counter clock wise motion.

Stars prove a stationary and flat cosmogony. The stars/constellations have never changed after hundreds of years maybe even thousands in recorded history. I know in my 30 or so years I’ve noticed the star formations the same as when I was a kid.

If the earth is spinning 1000mph and moving around sun at 66,600 mph and the whole solar system is moving in a 3rd direction which is what official science says then it shouldn’t be possible that stars haven’t changed position. They should change by the second if it’s moving in 3 directions... certainly change night after night and after months and years they should look nothing alike. But nope the stars are fixed in the firmament rotating like clockwork the total predictability.

TLDR: we’re moving in 3 directions the stars/constillations should have changed by now

That’s a normal response when your world view is challenged.. it’s called cognitive dissonance once it sets in

The question of flat earth explanation for Northern/Southern hemisphere is obviously malformed.

Not even worth discussing really. When you think about it.

Maybe we live on both sides of the pancake, and then cross the "equator" not really noticing it?

Think I threw out this constructive idea earlier itt, could somebody get back to me?

I want to repose a couple questions attempting Socratic method maybe wake someone up...

When playing poker do you ever get a live read or sense that someone does not have a hand?
Do your senses often lie to you?
Does the earth feel like it’s spinning?
Does the earths horizon appear perfectly flat for miles?
Does the horizon rise to your eye level?
If something is moving and spinning and a sphere then shouldn’t the burden of proof be on proving that it is doing those things?
Is everyone aware that no test can be done to prove the movement of the earth?
Does anyone know about michelson Morley experiment texting movement of earth using light was null?

Yeah, the speed of light should vary. Blame the light.

Re Coriolis effect as claimed for Earth - not I might add the Coriolis effect per se which is a phenomenon that does exist where there is motion with respect to a rotating frame - to which the question I ask in the other thread is whether the effect can be explained in terms of a single reference frame. Where the claim is made that only one reference frame is required to describe the effect, the description always invokes a second reference frame. 2 reference frames are required to cause the Coriolis effect - a body moving inertially but viewed from the perspective of a non-inertial rotating frame appears to deviate from its straight path.

I pose the argument re aeroplanes recording reduced or increased flight times in this way:

Globe claim:

Earth is claimed to rotate. Freely moving bodies which move above the Earth are claimed to appear to deviate when viewed from the perspective of a rotating Earth - ie the Coriolis effect. This is claimed to apply to air masses to cause hurricanes; footballs, javelins etc, and bullets. The cause of Coriolis deviation is the movement of freely moving bodies as Earth rotates independently underneath - the bodies appear to deviate from their actual paths because we are observers on the rotating frame of Earth.

Debunked once

There is no record of a single Coriolis deviation of a bullet, ball or other body.

(The Foucault pendulum is claimed as evidence of a Coriolis deviation. This is usually asserted by the unwitting as "a deviation" - "the plane of oscillation rotates". This is in fact a stationary Earth description - the plane of oscillation actually deviates over a stationary Earth. The spinning Earth description necessitates a plane of oscillation that remains fixed as Earth turns underneath. In any case, there is no way to verify using the results solely from a pendulum whether it is Earth turning underneath or the plane of oscillation rotating over a stationary Earth)

Debunked twice

If Earth rotates independently underneath freely moving balls, bullets, air masses and pendulums then it also rotates independently underneath aeroplanes. A flight from East to West would record reduced flight times as Earth rotates independently underneath - as per the claim made to cause the Earth based Coriolis effect. Yet flight times are recorded without such alteration, precisely as if Earth were stationary.

Summary:

Freely moving bodies such as bullets are claimed to experience Coriolis deviation - which means the bullet flies straight while Earth turns independently underneath, yet the deviation has never been validated. In the situation of aeroplanes, which are in the air for a long time and have many records of flight times, ie plenty of empirical data, there is no evidence of a plane - a freely moving body, ie not attached to the claimed rotating frame of Earth - moving independently of the Earth as a rotating reference frame.

Rebuttals to this argument focus on conservation of momentum due to the plane being on the rotating frame when sat on the runway. This ignores the necessary causes of the Coriolis effect which is a non-inertial rotating frame independent of an inertially moving body. Once the argument is correctly focussed on the reference frames the rebuttal is that the plane is actually still part of the rotating frame - it does not move in an inertial frame at all but because it is powered through the air, and the air rotates with Earth, the plane stays precisely with the rotating reference frame and therefore does not need to adjust its flight. But this is horse poop - air is claimed to move in straight lines while Earth turns underneath causing hurricanes. They do love to have their cake and scoff it.

Coriolis effect exists - it the lack of Coriolis effect for Earth that is a solid proof Earth does not rotate. If it did then the Coriolis effect would be observed for all bodies moving freely above Earth.

Yeah.
Hence the sence that the earth is either flat or round, when it could be for such reasoning be neither in theory.

Ok now prove it.. the onus of proof is on it being a ball. Our senses tell us it’s flat and motionless. So to prove any different shape you need to provide evidence.

When every test to prove the earths movement comes back null we we can say until further evidence it’s motionless.

Everything is relative. The earth is motionless.

I've read a few posts here and I'm now convinced that the Earth is flat. But I'm having a hard time understanding the implications.

Where does the sun go when it seems to set below the horizon? Does it go behind the antartic wall, or deep into the ocean?

Also I've heard that when the sun sets in Europe it is high in the sky in America. That sounds insane. Is it a lie? Or maybe there are different suns for different continents?

Explanatory drawings would be appreciated.

Could the ocean put out the sun and make it the moon each night? And then the moon ignites in the morning through friction against the antarctic wall?

And for getting the moon above us it moves with the speed of light on the other side of the earth disk. Sorry for not giving that information in the previous post. It ignites only every second time, because of its non-circular path.

And when you seem to see both the sun and moon at the same time? Could it be a mirage?

Why did this discussion die?

Did I scare you away?

Flat earth isn’t really a discussion or debate...

It’s more about people doing their home work and the rest of the people who are clueless on literally every topic asking the same questions.

I can’t play catcher in the rye and save everyone... all I can say is have your own journey and maybe you’ll find the truth if you seek it.

*homework