[Rama Set]

If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?

What about the Geodesic Mission in the 18th century that measured the difference in distance between degrees of latitude near the equator and near the north pole that showed the oblateness of the earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission

Degrees of latitude, and longitude are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map assuming it is a globe.

You are missing the point.  Yes, the degree is (somewhat) arbitrary, but upon deciding on the definition they discovered, by measuring the Earth's curvature, that the Earth was not a perfect sphere, so a degree was not the same everywhere on Earth.

[Woody]

The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science.  Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it.  Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence?  Or that the field itself is a scam?  I am not sure what you are getting at.

I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.

https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf

https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/

http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html

http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf

http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation

http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html

Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.

Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together. 

There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.

Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681

This seems like something you could do to me.  The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements.  If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something. 

Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era.  Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.

None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".

The problem you are going to have looking at current research is no one is looking to try to find out the shape of the Earth.  The closest you are going to get is just more precise measurements of the Earth. If you are expecting someone to say,"We just proved the Earth is spherical again!", I think you maybe waiting a long time.  My guess some cataclysm would need to take place that destroys all the knowledge gained by humanity about the shape of the Earth.

Current science is building upon the foundation already built and proven by consistently making accurate predictions.

FE proponents are the ones that are going to need to step up and start making accurate and reliable predictions based on a FE model.  Since currently I do not think anyone involved in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.

I will repeat myself.  If you start collectively looking at the information in the links I provided it starts to make a picture of the world we live in.  None by themselves will prove the shape of the Earth.

If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?

I could take some data of the most abundant minerals on each continent and make a visualization with a Flat Earth map, but that would do nothing to show that the earth is flat.

Here is an example:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-map-exposes-previously-unseen-details-seafloor

"Developed using a scientific model that captures gravity measurements of the ocean seafloor, the new map extracts data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) CryoSat-2 satellite, which primarily captures polar ice data but also operates continuously over the oceans, and Jason-1, NASA’s satellite that was redirected to map the gravity field during the last year of its 12-year mission."

"Combined with existing data and drastically improved remote sensing instruments, the new map, described in the journal Science, has revealed details of thousands of undersea mountains, or seamounts, extending a kilometer or more from the ocean bottom. The new map also gives geophysicists new tools to investigate ocean spreading centers and little-studied remote ocean basins."

"The authors of the study say the map provides a new window into the tectonics of the deep oceans."

https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/

The above is research into the accuracy of using GPS and other satellites used for taking measurements and the stuff that needs to be taken into account.

Here is research involving satellite errors, Earth body tide, tide loading, gravity, moon, seismological observations  and tectonics.  The second paper was the result of noticing discrepancies of 2-3 mm in a certain area of the world.

Even without doing an in depth analysis I think we can assume currently accepted calculations and models were used to make predictions.  That is why the discrepancies were mentioned in the paper. Here we have researchers making predictions based on models for satellite errors, tide loading, Earth body tide, gravity and tectonics.  Somehow the pieces fit together in a satisfactory manner with discrepancies of under 3 mm.   I think it is important to note that a group of scientist who are indoctrinated into a false world view took the time to find out why predictions for a certain area were 3 mm or less off.

Do you really think that over many, many experiments, studies, observations, calculations used, predictions being made no one saw a discrepancy as big as being wrong about the general shape of the Earth? An error like that would resonate through many fields and make predictions and calculations, measurements, etc wrong and noticeable.

As I stated before no one except a small group is out to prove the shape of the Earth, to the best of my knowledge.  Current science is making accurate and reliable predictions based on a heliocentric and spheroid models. If you expect to read a paper from someone in main stream science focusing on the shape of the Earth it will likely not happen unless they are making refinements to the currently accepted measurements.

As for the above tectonics, tides, satellites, Earth body tide IMHO you should take note of and research further.  Maybe look into how they were able to make predictions based on the currently accepted knowledge and models.

[rabinoz]

If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?

I could take some data of the most abundant minerals on each continent and make a visualization with a Flat Earth map, but that would do nothing to show that the earth is flat.

In the video I presented, and in the information gain from Geodetic Surveying, the aim has never been to "Prove the Earth a Globe", but simply to measure the earth. In other words, the dimensions of the continents and countries.

Even the the Geodesic Mission in the 18th century that measured the difference in distance between degrees of latitude near the equator and near the north pole that showed the oblateness of the earth? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission) was not to "Prove the Earth a Globe", but to settle the "oblate/prolate" discussions around Picard, Cassini, Hooke and Newton's time.

It is all this data on the dimensions of the earth the shows that it cannot be flat! As I have presented numerous times the simple fact that the equatorial circumference of the earth is close to 4 x (the distance from the equator to the north pole) on its own is enough to demonstrate this.

Unless you deny that the degree of latitude and longitude are each close to 111 km (69.5 miles or 60 Nm) it is a bit hard to deny this!

[Round fact]

Other than the math and experimentation that prove the Earth is round, all one need do is drive west on I-70 through Kansas as night.

If you do, you will notice what appears to be a few radio towers in the distance popping up on the horizon, within a few minutes there dozens, within an hour there are hundreds then several hundred all appearing to spring up out of the ground.  They  are Wind Towers and even at 80 mph it takes awhile to reach the first tower

[atmoSPHERE]

I don't know if this has been said already, but if you believe the Earth is flat, then the "burden of ignorance" is on you; regardless of who has the "burden of proof". To me, that is as simple as it needs to be. We all have the same amount of resources. We all have eyes and brains (well SOME of us don't have those but...). The "burden of proof" rests on no one. I think someone is trying to make up a new 'moral law' that really isn't there in order to spur more conversation and responsibility from the 'RET' side of the debate. As I'm sure all the 'Roundies' are aware: There is an abundance of information proving that the Earth is round, and if you are unable to see that, then it isn't my problem. In fact, people believing the Earth is flat is probably an evolutionary disadvantage, and you're doing us all a favor by believing what you believe.

To all 'Roundies': 'FE'ers' don't abide by their own rules. Why should you have to?

[Ecthelion]

The "burden of proof" rests on no one.

Precisely. Burden of proof is a concept for fact finding in a court of law. The scientific method doesn't contain a principle about the "burden of proof". The closest thing you get is the idea of a null hypothesis, and that is merely a mirror image of the hypothesis. Assigning a burden of proof can be a useful tool to structure a debate, but is not as clear cut as people seem to think.