[tylerfoor]

Hello everyone,

I am writing a paper for a class in college. I am trying to compile arguments for why people believe the Earth is flat and also how they can prove it. Subsequently, if you believe the Earth is round, I would also like to hear your arguments as well as validation for it being round.

To begin, refute the measurements made my Eratosthenes https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes to find the diameter of the Earth or show how his measurements are incorrect.

[Skeptic]

I'm a round-earther, so I can't prove that the Earth is flat, but I'll provide some of my arguments as well as validations as you requested.

Firstly, aside from Eratosthene's experiment, the Earth can be proven round by watching ships disappear over the curvature of the Earth. A flat-earther might refute this  observation as being the result of perspective, (as things get further away, they start looking smaller). I would then argue that that theory doesn't make sense, because the ship's hull disappears first, then, incrementally, so do the sails, from bottom to top. It's clearly going downwards over an incremental drop-off, also known as a curve.

Secondly, the Earth can be proven round by the fact that one can see further away the higher they climb a tall structure. I would argue against the flat-earth theory by pointing out the fact that if the Earth were flat, then you should be able to see the same exact distance regardless of how high you climb. If that were true, then if you climbed the tallest building in New York City, equipped with a powerful telescope, then you should be able to see the Eiffel Tower in Paris. This of course, is not the case, lending further evidence to the concept of a round-earth.

Thirdly, one can clearly see the shadow of the Earth against the moon's surface. If Earth was simply a flat circle, then the only way that shadow would be possible is if the flat-earth model was vertical; if this were the case, then, seeing as the flat-earther's explanation for gravity is that the flat-earth is moving upwards in space really fast, everything would slide off the earth, unless of course the flat-earthers revised their theory to say that the flat earth is indeed vertical, and either headed straight towards the moon at a high velocity in order to hold us all to the surface, or, moving quickly away from the moon, depending on which side of the circle they say we're on. Of course, if this was the case, not only would we be able to see the shadow of Earth on the moon getting bigger or smaller, but we would also all be dead by now. The only other logical explanation for Earth's shadow against the moon, remaining consistent in shape and cyclic patterns, is that the Earth is round, not flat.

Hope this helps.

[Westprog]

Secondly, the Earth can be proven round by the fact that one can see further away the higher they climb a tall structure. I would argue against the flat-earth theory by pointing out the fact that if the Earth were flat, then you should be able to see the same exact distance regardless of how high you climb. If that were true, then if you climbed the tallest building in New York City, equipped with a powerful telescope, then you should be able to see the Eiffel Tower in Paris. This of course, is not the case, lending further evidence to the concept of a round-earth.
Hope this helps.
...

This is very good, but I'll just point out that even with a flat Earth model, you can see further from higher when there's some intervening obstacle. At sea, however, where no such obstacles exist, ships always attempted to see further by sending someone to the top of the highest mast, and the person on top of the mast was always the first to see land. Even if the land included mountains higher than the top of the ship.

This is of course totally inexplicable in the FE model, and is totally comprehensible with a globe.

[Skeptic]

Secondly, the Earth can be proven round by the fact that one can see further away the higher they climb a tall structure. I would argue against the flat-earth theory by pointing out the fact that if the Earth were flat, then you should be able to see the same exact distance regardless of how high you climb. If that were true, then if you climbed the tallest building in New York City, equipped with a powerful telescope, then you should be able to see the Eiffel Tower in Paris. This of course, is not the case, lending further evidence to the concept of a round-earth.
Hope this helps.
...

This is very good, but I'll just point out that even with a flat Earth model, you can see further from higher when there's some intervening obstacle.

Indeed. Obstacles tend to obstruct and get in the way of things.

[tylerfoor]

So in theory, FE's believe that if we could go to the eternal high point on earth, we would be able to see the infamous ice wall? correct me if I understand this wrong

[Skeptic]

They may reason that there's too much fog, dust and particulate in the air to be able to see that far, and the ice wall is too short to see at that great a distance. All about perspective. 

[Westprog]

They may reason that there's too much fog, dust and particulate in the air to be able to see that far, and the ice wall is too short to see at that great a distance. All about perspective. 

The RE position is that there's a hard limit on how far you can see, based on height and some very small degree of refraction. The FE position is that in principle you could see across the Atlantic, but in practice there's a maximum limit which coincidentally happens to coincide with the RE predictions.it

Note that while the FEs might say that it's atmospheric conditions and fog and spray and mist that stops people seeing New York from Portugal, this maximum limit appears to be unaffected by the weather. No matter how clear the day, it's impossible to see further than the curve of the Earth permits. Even at very high altitudes, it's not possible to see one mountain peak from another through the thinnest air if it's on the far side of the horizon.

[Skeptic]

Makes sense to me.