101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets in EA

« on: October 31, 2020, 02:17:38 PM »

You attempt to force a weird narrative here. You assume that EA is an assumption, and that it needs to be verified through observation. This is not how Zetetic inquiry works. We have made the observation first, and reached a conclusion from it.

If my narrative is weird, please elaborate why.  Don't just reply with things like "I should try to understand it and respond", because clearly I'm asking, if EA predicts that light rays should be detectable in all regions of darkness on their way back up into space, why do we not detect that fact?  You choose to ignore that bit.  Aren't these forums for discussion and education?  So educate me if you think I'm wrong, do explain.

Regarding how Zetetic inquiry works, yes, I know.  It rejects traditional scientific methodology, chooses to only believe what you see, and concludes from there with no further hypothesis to validate a conclusion.  Science goes one step further than that and tests the hypothesis, thus providing evidence.

Well, you quite literally couldn't. I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models. You chose column A for one model, and column B for another model, while ignoring the rest. Instead of "throwing things back" at me, it might be time to start fixing your argumentation. This isn't a game in which you're trying to one-up me, it's a discussion. When a critical flaw in your argument is highlighted, you should try to understand it and respond - not just "nuh uh!" me. The latter makes you look childish.

Well, quite literally I can.  I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models.  I clearly articulated that with FET/EA, there would have to be detectable direct sunlight on its way back up into space through the night sky, and that with RET there could be no direct sunlight due to part of the Earth blocking it.  I'm really not sure why you think one is column A and one is column B.

On the subject of ignoring the rest, why is it that you are ignoring that fact that there is a difference in measured spectra between direct sunlight and reflected sunlight (i.e. day and night)?  You're right, it's not a game, but you do seem to be quite fond of just telling people that they are wrong without explaining why they are wrong, and simply that they should get more educated.  This makes you look foolish.

I agree. Will you be altering your position to fix this issue, then?

Fix what issue?  Again, you're quick to say there is an issue but slow to provide rationale.  I've already explained why I think EA predicts direct sunlight being detectable in all regions of darkness in FET as the light goes back up into space, so if that's wrong, please elaborate why so that I can better understand EA.

Everyday observation. Any trivial experimental setup will confirm the conclusion, and you've already agreed that you've observed clouds being lit from underneath.

So you're saying that any trivial experimental setup with confirm the conclusion that light curves upwards the further it travels?  OK, what causes it to travel upwards?  In EA there is a force that is, as yet, unexplained, with no mathematical model that can make predictions of it.

Clouds are lit from above, internally through reflection/refraction, and underneath.  Unlike the diagram shown in the Wiki, light can pass through clouds - it isn't just blocked.

You might want to learn what an "assumption" is in propositional logic. To call the conclusion of a deduction an assumption is to flip the whole process on its head. I suspect that the problem is with your vocabulary, and not with your ability to follow logic, but the two are functionally the same when you end up saying things like this.

The rest of your post is summed as "I like RET and dislike FET", with no qualifying argumentation. Please keep in mind that such declarations are considered hopelessly off-topic in the debate boards. I'll be nice this time, since you're new, but keep your posts on-topic moving forward.

If the conclusion of a deduction is not backed up by tested hypothesis, it can be considered an assumption.  It's interesting you say this is flipping it on its head, because that's exactly what things like this and Zetetic inquiry do - flip scientific methodologies on their head.  All I'm doing here is flipping it back again.

You are incorrect.  It's not that I "like RET" and "dislike FET", I find the subject and comparisons fascinating.  Call me a "globeliever" or whatever, I won't argue that siding, but then we live in a world where there is overwhelming amounts of scientific proof and evidence to show that the world is indeed globular.  Do I know this as fact?  No, of course not, but I don't just take things at face value as I see them either, and am quite capable of logical deduction, reasoning and challenging things.

But yes, you're right, generic claims of FET and RET do not belong here.  This is about EA and (as you have now introduced) differences in approaches to reaching those conclusions and validating them.

102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 31, 2020, 11:08:25 AM »

That's not really the point. The point is: can EA explain why the Moon appears exactly the same (same size, same aspect) from England and Greece, but at a slightly different relative position with respect to a fixed star?

On it's own, no it can't.  But those who support FET will pull you up on your posit that stars are fixed.  In FET they are not fixed, they are close and rotate in a plane above the Sun and Moon, and hence account for the slightly different relative position.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars

The thing is, where FET can't fully explain something and it introduces contradictions, you start to encounter nonsensical stuff like "light is so bright that air catches it" to explain why the Sun doesn't change its apparent size (not sure if the same applies to the Moon, probably not!)

103

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.

« on: October 31, 2020, 10:34:52 AM »

Longitube, I'm afraid I already provided you with both correct calculations and methodology for this.

This doesn't need any calculations, and it's convenient that some things get ignored to suit narrative.  I posit the following which is in relation to this, and am questioning why you are doing your best to show that the horizon from space would be/is flat? 

a. If you stand on the surface of a large enough sphere and look out to the horizon, it looks flat from that perspective.  If you rise high enough above the surface of that sphere, you would see a curved horizon, I think we can all agree on that one, surely?  That's just common sense and observation that you can do at home with a large beach ball and a tiny camera.  Get high enough and you'd see the full sphere.
b. If you stand on the surface of a large enough flat disc and look out to the horizon, it would also look flat from that perspective.  However, what sort of horizon would you expect to see if you were to rise high enough?  A flat one?  Well no, you'd see the curved edge of the disc. Get high enough and you'd see the full disc.

Both models predict a curved horizon at high altitude, so why are flat Earth supporters going out of their way to claim that the horizon viewed high up is in fact straight?  Perhaps you turn to the EA theory to say that the light is curved upwards the further it travels and so that compensates for the curvature of the edge of the disk, making it look straight?  Fair enough.

RET has a proven, scientific model for showing that light travels in a straight line.
FET only has a theory that light curves upwards, and the further it travels the more it curves.  There is no proven, scientific model for this.

104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 31, 2020, 10:03:27 AM »

The method is based on this real experiment: http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html#:~:text=Parallax%20is%20the%20apparent%20shift,same%20point%20six%20hours%20apart and I used their images.

Great post mate, I've seen that experiment before, but unfortunately you'll probably get the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory thrown back as the explanation.  See, the "issue" with that experiment posits that the Earth is round and that light travels (to all intents and purposes for this experiment) in a straight line.  Just like Eratosthenes used shadows to prove that the Earth was round, the posit there was also that light travels in a straight line.  That FET says light curves upwards the further it travels, it means that Eratosthenes wasn't actually measuring the circumference of a globe, he was measuring the diameter of a flat disc.  Yes, flat Earthers believe that the Earth is some 25,000 miles in diameter, despite many different, yet repeatable scientific experiments showing that it is in fact just 7,900 miles in diameter.

Basically, the same argument will be used to dispute the effects of parallax, because that conveniently explains how two different people in different locations can apparently see different things.  The EA theory is full of holes, but it's the best they've got to explain the "day spot" on Earth and things like sunrise and sunset.  When I challenged it in a previous post all I got was "you are making a flawed assumption, or about 5 of them", yet was offered nothing to back up why his assumption wasn't equally flawed.  Interesting debates though.

105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets in EA

« on: October 31, 2020, 09:42:23 AM »

Sure, like clouds. A common sight.

I'm glad we agree on the principle.

Well, yeah, you wouldn't be looking at "the night sky" - you don't really encounter many non-blocked upward-heading light rays in the night sky. You'd be looking at "seconds after sunset". In which case, yes, aeroplanes are lit from the underside. This is model-agnostic.

How do you figure curved light would only illuminate aeroplanes just "seconds after sunset"?  If the Earth is flat, and light is radiating out from the Sun in all directions (which you say is the case) the entire "night sky" would be flooded with rays of light on their way back up to space, not just those rays that are close to, and responsible for "daylight" and "sunset".  This would illuminate things like clouds and aeroplanes with as much intensity as they do during the day no matter what their location.

You can't just pick and choose which light rays you want to pay attention to so that they fit your hypothesis, or make up formulas with things like a Bishop Constant to fit a patchwork of contradictions.  Or are you going to turn around and say that those rays of light in darkness curve away from the Earth at altitudes far higher than aeroplanes?  That would be very convenient.

Not strictly - you arbitrarily chose to only consider one of two reasons. All light that reaches the Earth is blocked by an area of the Earth. All light that doesn't reach the Earth doesn't reach the Earth.

I could throw exactly the same back - that you arbitrarily choose one of two reasons.  It's a non-argument in that sense, but you choose to ignore the fact that empirical measurements of the spectra of direct sunlight and reflected moonlight are different.  They are different because direct sunlight is only impacted by our atmosphere.  Reflected moonlight is impacted by the surface of the Moon, and while its surface does reflect largely a white light, its composition is slightly different as a result.  This has been repeatedly and independently measured, so how do you explain that?  Consider that measurements don't just happen on the surface of the Earth either.  Or are you going to turn around and just say that this evidence is falsified and part of a bigger conspiracy theory?  In which case, the debate isn't really about whether the Earth is flat or round is it?

Anyway, if FET is correct, where is the evidence to support the fact that light is curved away from the surface of the Earth?

Your stipulation is based upon a flawed assumption. Or, well, about 5 of them.

Again, I could equally just state that your reasoning is also based upon a flawed assumption - that the Earth is flat and light is significantly curved away from its surface by some unknown force that you cannot explain and have no scientifically verified empirical formula for.

That the Earth is round, that light travels in a straight line unless acted on is a much simpler hypothesis, and explains everything we see in reality quite nicely.  In fact light is so reliably straight that it is used to accurately measure relative heights, speeds, levels, angles, and yes, curvature.  Sure, light does bend, but is bent by much larger astronomical bodies and EM forces, in accordance with formulae that are fully understood and utilised here on Earth to carry out experimentation on particle physics.

Here's the big difference between FET and RET.  FET is just that, a theory, with no evidence to prove or disprove the individual posits, just analogous models like "small and close" vs "large and far away".  Only one can be correct, yet only one model is accompanied by empirical, repeatable evidence.  Where is the FET evidence that shows the Sun and Moon are only 32 miles across and 3,000 miles away for example?  All you've done is taken the actual numbers and scaled them to produce an analogous model.  That's fine, but you have to be able to provide proof and evidence that supports your model.  If you don't or won't, at best it's just pseudoscience, and at worst it's a religion.

106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets in EA

« on: October 30, 2020, 05:14:42 PM »

As an analogy to explain the observed path of light rays in from the sun in EA, would it be best to think of them like magnetic field lines coming out of a dipole, like a bar magnet?

I don't want to speak with too much confidence (because someone will no doubt jump in with a "gotcha"), but I'm not immediately seeing an issue with thinking of it that way.

No, this is a misunderstanding. The "spotlight nature" of the Sun is caused by EA. The illustration focuses on some light rays of particular interest (specifically, it was adapted from an illustration demonstrating different times of day on the Earth), but this does not mean other rays are absent. The reason most of them are irrelevant is that they'd simply curve away before reaching the observer.

Let's posit that this EA theory is correct, that some mechanism causes sunlight to curve in such a way that it causes a "day spot", and at the edge of that day spot the light rays don't actually hit the Earth and are instead curved away from the observer again back into space.  Surely if that were the case, anything in the way of that light on its way back up would be illuminated from the edge/underside with just as much intensity?  But, you don't see Aeroplanes glowing in the night sky due to sunlight on its way back up do you?

With FET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being curved away.  As a result, those rays of direct sunlight must still exist on their way back to space in that region.
With RET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being blocked by one hemisphere.  As a result, NO rays of direct sunlight can exist in that region.

As stipulated earlier, aeroplanes flying across the night sky do not glow from the underside, so one can reasonably deduce that the RET best fits reality.  The only illumination the dark side gets is from Moonlight (reflected Sunlight) which is measurably different to direct Sunlight due to the surface of the moon changing its spectra.  In RET, there is no Sunlight detectable in the dark regions of Earth.

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?

« on: October 30, 2020, 12:00:04 PM »

The world is round, light travels in straight lines (except when refracted by temperature gradients and such) and gravity exists - take those four simple facts as truth - and all of that spiralling complexity falls away - and you don't need to imagine gigantic conspiracy theories - everything falls into place really neatly and simply.

When you get a scientific principle "right" - it's almost always very much simpler than the wrong answers.

I was going to create a new post for this whole topic of sticks and shadows, but didn't want to be hit with the old "do a search" thing, though being an old thread I'm sure replying to it will be considered poor netiquette as well.  But, this hit the nail on the head for me.  Things don't always have to be complex - simple is often better, and the simple rotating globe model, tilted at an axis relative to the orbit around the Sun, with a tidally-locked Moon, explains each and every observation in reality very neatly.  No layering of rules upon rules and the introduction of nonsensical assumptions to explain the multitude of contradictions FET raises.

Anyway, onto the subject in question.  I know that a light source close to a surface littered with sticks of the same height will produce shadows of different lengths at the same time.  If the light source is far enough away though, the difference in shadow lengths will be almost impossible to perceive.

FET says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles, with a Sun 3k miles away, itself having a diameter of 32 miles.
RET says that the Earth has a diameter of 7,900 miles, with a Sun 93m miles away, itself having a diameter of 865k miles.

In FET, rays of light hitting the Earth must be at measurably different angles to produce the observed effect and fit the relative scale of the individual bodies.
In RET, rays of light hitting the Earth have been empirically measured as being (to all intents and purposes) parallel, which is what you'd expect given the sizes and distances involved.

So which is it?  Again it's a case that both could be believed if you are naïve, but all FET does is take Eratosthenes' measurement of the circumference of the Earth, posit the Earth is flat, and calls that its diameter.  Yet, countless different empirical observations and scientific measurements all agree that Eratosthenes' measurement was accurate to within 1%, and that it represents the circumference of the Earth, not its diameter.  Let's say you dispute those observations and measurements.  OK, cool, but then FET falls flat (pun intended) on its face when trying to describe why the Sun and Moon do not change in size as they cross the sky. 

In FET, the Sun and Moon are the same size and only 3,000 miles away. This would result in an observable change in size as they moved across the sky.
In RET, the Sun and Moon are very different sizes and very different distances, but both a significant distance from Earth.  This results in no observable change in size as they move across the sky.

Saying the Sun is so bright that its light is "caught by the air" so that its size isn't affected by perspective is ridiculous.  You can buy torches now that output light powerful enough to blind you, much like the Sun.  Take that torch, wear some protective glasses, and have somebody point it at you.  Have them move away.  Notice how that circle of light gets smaller as it moves away.  How can that be?  It's because it is small and close and affected by perspective.  Unlike the Sun which is massive but far enough away to the point where the effects of perspective are not observable to our eyes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people believing what they want as long as they are nice about it to each other.  But, when there is so much actual, scientific, empirical, and independently observable proof and indication that Earth is round, to completely disregard that in favour of a theory that needs a band aid for every contradiction is just baffling to me, especially these days.  I can understand it thousands of years ago when they didn't have the level of understanding and education that we do now, but that's how science works.  You take a theory and test it against reality.  If it fails, the theory is wrong.  If it passes, it doesn't mean the theory is 100% correct, but it's an indication that your understanding is correct.  The theory may fall down on predicting something else, so you refine it, but what you don't do is just patch it up to suit your own narrative.

I get it, RET can be baffling to some as well, but it's not all complex science and maths - some of it is common sense as well based on what you can see with your own two eyes.

108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 30, 2020, 10:04:51 AM »

Two things to note:
* When the Moon appears bigger, it appears bigger for everyone, wherever they are on Earth
* The angular size of the Moon doesn't vary significantly as it moves through the sky

This is the crux of it to me.  It's all well and good people presenting all kinds of images and proofs and theories, and discussing whether the Moon is tangible or not.  The Moon has to be as tangible as the Earth we live on, surely, but that's a debate in itself.

The universe is complex, but on a macro scale it obeys relatively simple laws, and those laws can be used to model things and make predictions.  Now, the accepted flat Earth model has the Sun and Moon rotating around a central point above the Earth.  You can literally make a model of this at home, with a flat disk, some coat hanger wire, a couple of ping pong balls and a small camera.  Construct said model, put the camera on the surface of the disc, and rotate the "Moon".  You will see that it changes size as it moves towards/away from you, quite measurably.  Also, the "Moon" doesn't follow an arc across the sky or intersect the horizon at any point.

Given that the observable Moon does not really vary in apparent size during a daily cycle, and that it rises above and sets below the horizon, following an arc across the sky, how is this accounted for in the flat Earth model?

Edit:  I've just headed over to the Wiki and FAQ, and I see that the Moon is accepted as being a sphere.  Excellent.  So, with that...

If the Moon is a sphere, why is it that everybody on Earth sees only one face of the Moon no matter what the time or their location?  In a flat Earth model, the Moon would appear differently to people in different locations at the same time.

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 30, 2020, 09:42:42 AM »

I'm here for a similar reason. But I can assure you people probably have lengthy responses to a lot of these. And no matter if you believe the world is flat or a globe, I don't think any of us have the time or capacity to process all of them at once... Why don't you pick just one item from the list you made for an in-depth discussion, and see where it goes from there?

Oh you're absolutely right, and that's good advice man, I shall see if I can create a thread that addresses one of these and see if it gets any traction and logical, sensible discussion.  Probably best to do a search first though, lol

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 29, 2020, 05:34:55 PM »

I literally just joined here today, not to troll, but because I'm fascinated by the beliefs and rationale behind them.  This thread is very long and I had to skim it, but the following caught my attention:

It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.

Correct.  The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

I'd also never considered that [some] people are just very skeptical of the globe theory as opposed to simply believing that the Earth is flat, or a flat disc.  However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.

I can totally understand why, back in historical times, people would posit that the Earth was a round, flat disc, with the atmosphere and celestial bodies being part of what they call the firmament.  With no other knowledge or experience of the Earth and all above it, that's a reasonable posit.  However, as time goes on and we get more and more experience, more empirical data, more science to prove/disprove things, there has to come a point where such evidence can't just be ignored or explained away by incompatible theories.

There are so many simple things that fly in the face of a flat Earth theory:

1. The Sun and Moon don't change in size as they move across the sky.  In FET, they would change in size as they move towards and away from us.
2. The Sun and Moon rise/set above/below the horizon.  In FET, they would just stay at the same linear path across the sky, getting smaller and dimmer.
3. We get eclipses.  In FET, it's not possible to get Eclipses.
4. Different parts of the Earth experience different seasons at the same time.  In FET it would be the same season everywhere.
5. Different parts of the Earth observe different constellations.  In FET we would all see the same ones.
6. Sticks of identical length but in different parts of the Earth cast different length shadows at the same time of day.  In FET the shadows would be the same length everywhere.
7. Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.  In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship.
8. Measurement of actual distances between countries shows that the distance between lines of longitude are longest at the equator, then get shorter as you go north AND shorter when you go south.  In FET the distance between them can only increase as you go from the north (centre) to the ice wall (outer edge)
9. Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour.  In FET there would be no measured rotation.
10. We only ever see one face of the moon no matter where you are on Earth.  In FET, if the Moon were accepted as being a sphere, different people would see different faces of the moon depending on their location.  If the Moon were accepted as being a disc, different people would see a different shaped moon, round when direct, elliptical when viewed at an angle.

ALL of the above can only be explained by the Earth being a globe, rotating about a titled axis once every 24 hours, itself orbited by a tidally locked Moon while collectively orbiting the Sun once every 364.25 days.  Not only does one simple globe model quite elegantly support ALL of the above, it does so with the ability to predict the exact occurrence of celestial events well into the future.  Further, we have actual photographic evidence of the Earth from space to back up the findings that indicate the Earth is indeed round.

To simply dispute those facts, whether you believe in a flat Earth or not, makes no sense to me.  I mean sure, don't believe everything you are shown and told right, especially on the internet?  But come on, we all have eyes, most of us can use them, and those who do can observe most of those proofs for themselves.  If FET could also accommodate them, with no "invisible moons" to cater for eclipses or other such incompatible workarounds like a "wall of ice" that hasn't been observed, then fair enough, debate away.  But this really shouldn't be a debate.

111

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FET explain comets?

« on: October 29, 2020, 04:31:07 PM »

I see no inconsistency. In FET, all celestial bodies rotate around the Earth, creating their apparent rising and setting. It would be inconsistent to assume that your comet was the first body not to do that.

If the FET is correct, and all celestial bodies rotate around the Earth, surely the following would be observed:

1. The Sun and Moon would change their apparent size in the sky as they move towards and away from you
2. The Sun and Moon would never actually disappear behind a horizon, instead just follow a linear path across the sky
3. We would never observe eclipses due to them always being opposite each other as they rotate around the Earth

Given that the Sun and Moon don't change their apparent size in the sky, do disappear behind a horizon and do produce predictable eclipses, I'd love to know what other aspects of FET account for these direct observations.  Theories are all fine, they provide fuel for learning and growth, but it's also important to refine those theories as we learn more and more about how reality matches theory.

112

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.

« on: October 29, 2020, 03:58:16 PM »

In the meantime, if anyone else wants to question my methodology or claim that the Earth is round and very small, you know where to find me. Longiboy's mantle is there for you to pick up!

Not claiming anything, but an interesting debate for sure, with some logic and reasoning presented on both sides.  I've read it all, looked at all of the images presented, and will try to keep things very simple because that's normally where the answers lie.  Based on what I see, and accounting for the fact that there are no hard edges in the video to accurately draw against:

1. Near the start of the climb (roughly 1m into the video) the horizon looks straight regardless of position or orientation (conforms to agreed flat Earth theory)
2. Near the end of the climb (roughly 1h 50m into the video) the horizon looks curved regardless of position or orientation (conforms to agreed globe Earth theory)

If we consider that the same camera was used throughout the entire video, with no cuts, it's fair to say that any distortion in any part of the image would manifest itself equally regardless of altitude.  Given that there are enough images in that video where the horizon is in the middle of the screen, and it looks straight near the ground, the only rational explanation for the horizon being curved when viewed high up is that it is indeed curved.

What causes that curve?  Interesting question...and we already determined that it's not the camera.  So...

a. If you stand on the surface of a large enough sphere and look out to the horizon, it looks flat from that perspective.  If you rise high enough above the surface of that sphere, you would see a curved horizon, I think we can all agree on that one, surely?  That's just common sense and observation that you can do at home with a large beach ball and a tiny camera.  Get high enough and you'd see the full sphere.
b. If you stand on the surface of a large enough flat disc and look out to the horizon, it would also look flat from that perspective.  However, what sort of horizon would you expect to see if you were to rise high enough?  A flat one?  Well no, you'd see the curved edge of the disc. Get high enough and you'd see the full disc.

Both models predict a curved horizon at high altitude, so why are flat Earth supporters going out of their way to claim that the horizon viewed high up is in fact straight?  That in itself shows a level of rejection of logical reasoning and observable fact.  Surely you'd be agreeing that yes, it is curved, and instead disagreeing on what that horizon actually represents (the edge of the Earth if it's a flat disc, or the Earth's surface curving away if it's a globe).

113

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: My dad is a pilot, does he know something?

« on: October 29, 2020, 02:28:52 PM »

I strongly doubt it. The claims that pilots would be able to tell the two models aparts are vastly exaggerated. Part of the reason the globe model has historically been so successful is that it's not an entirely terrible approximation of reality. Sure, it gets some details wrong, but it works well enough for day-to-day living.

Hiya, I've just joined here, first post so a warm hello.  I've been intrigued by the flat Earth model since interest in it exploded in 2017.  I'm man of science, observation and empirical judgement, with my own opinions and beliefs on various things including the world as it is presented to me.  I'm also able to respect other peoples differing opinions and beliefs, and hope to engage in some critical thinking to discuss, challenge, educate and be educated.  At no point will I say one person is right and another person is wrong, nor just insult people by asking them to prove something just because I disagree.  So, with that said...

Please don't take this as direct confrontation, but I'm genuinely interested to know which aspects of reality the globe model gets wrong.