@Inquisitive_ , if you refute every single one of these points that I grabbed from an article online decisively, I will accept your point about the Earth being flat. Just rationalise it out for me, because I genuinely don't know how you can maintain such an outdated view in today's world.
No problem I will, but I wished you had thought more deeply about each point you presented, because each of these actually refutes the heliocentric model, I am going to keep them short and crisp, so others can benefit too.
1.
Moon
Solar Eclipse
There has been more then 50 reports of solar eclipses happening while both the moon and sun could be seen in the skies at the same time, this should be impossible if eclipses are caused
by perfect 180 degree alignment of the sun/earth/moon in billiard ball like fashion were the ball earth casts a shadow as purported by the heliocentric model. These reports are all over the world.
The Ancient civilisations like Chaldean's, Mayan's, Egyptian's and Babylonian's each believing in flat earth, accurately predicted until this very day every solar eclipse, it's mind boggling how these people for whose roof's were the skies and every individual being a cosmologist, all believed the solar eclipse occurred due to what they called the invisible 'black sun', an objects that orbits the flat earth in a path not understood that is responsible, the Mayan's called it 'Ragu'
The heliocentrist have tried to explain this phenomenon through arguing 'perspective' and 'refraction' why in some eclipses both the moon and sun could be seen in the Horizon, which is nothing more then damage control, pseudo science quakademic mental masturbation that makes no sense when you engage in deep thought.
The same is argued for the Super moon phenomenon and partial eclipses, all refuting heliocentric eclipse theory, using a combination of mirage, refraction and atmospheric lensing to argue away the impossible.
Aristotle argument about round shadow is self defeating, the flat earth model is a round disc shape that long preceded the spinning ball earth model, so seeing a round shadow is no prove whatsoever.
However the moon is set to be of a spherical shape, think deeply about this for a moment, a spherical object has many sides to it, so why do we always see the same side of the moon anywhere on earth?? If it was truly spherical, you would see many sides of the moon, not the same.
Here is a chapter out of the famous DR Samuel Rowbatham
"cause of solar and lunar eclipses"if you like to explore mor
e deeper
, He is the flat earth Guru, created shock-waves in Europe, you likely never heard off him because it's forbidden knowledge and forbidden science.
If there was any academic honesty and they didn't feel threatened, they would have showed it as an alternative view, with all it's experiments, scientists throughout the ages, but they didn't.
I know of an astrophysicist that has done a PhD leave after he came across Sagnac motionless earth experiment, he felt very betrayed because he was never educated about this alternative view, he only stumbled upon it while arguing with a flat earther that showed it to him.
2. Ships and Horizon.
I have already made a post in this thread about it, with a video of a P900 Zoom Camera bringing that supposed ship after it appears to you to disappear into the horizon (not over the horizon) back into view
This is what's called perspective, image below will illustrates this point perfectly, please examine it.
In this image notice how the tracks grow smaller along with the Telegraph poles, over the Horizon line until it reaches outside of your vanishing point, it's the exact same concept.
Below is a 40 second video were the person using a P900 has zoomed into a ship that appears to disappear 'into the horizon' bringing it back into view, watch what happens as the person 'zooms' out of the ship.
P900 bringing a ship that appears to have gone over the horizon back into view, disproving it has gone over the curvature of the earth.
There is also another argument in the Flat earth community which is atmospheric lensing (refraction), here is a video with a detailed experiment, a real world experiment, unlike just cheap theories, were towards the end of the video he shows you how a sun appears to set on a flat desk.
Atmospheric lensing Refraction experiment Flat Earth
Also ask yourself this basic question, how is possible to have a body of water curved ? were have you ever seen this in the world?
The basic physics of water is that it maintains its level, there is a reason why they call it Sea level, if I pour a billion gallon of water, it flow in all directions and gather in the lowest point
It's simply impossible to a have a curved body of water, it defies physics and even common sense.
3 Varying Star constellation
Aristotle is no astrologist or a cosmologist, Polaris which is the fixed Northern Star, over the North Pole at the centre in the millennium old flat-earth map, which was the compass 'North' for our ancestors, which they used to navigate around the planet, disproves the spinning ball earth.
The Star should never be fixed and neither should all the orbits of star constellation that are also fixed, especially in light of all these different ridiculous motions
With just that in mind, we should see great Parallax and shifting positions especially after 6 months when we are supposedly on the opposite side of the sun, but there is no Parallax not a single inch in thousands of years. The star is fixed, and all the other stars that orbit it, are also fixed, this is impossible on a spinning ball earth shooting through infinite space.
What's more laughable is the explanations for this, those stars are so many 'trillion light years away from us' that we would not notice any Parallax or shift, I laugh every time I read it, what they are conveniently saying is, that you would see Parallax after few thousand years, when you are no longer alive to disprove them on it, only a fool would fall for this.
4 Shadows and Sticks
This is the weakest of all arguments, in the heliocentric model because the sun is put 93 million miles away, the sun light would come in 'parallel' which is understandable when an object is very far away from you. This is how Eratosthenes measures the ball earth circumference to 25000 miles. relying on this 'parallel' sun light.
However there is a big problem, because when an object is 'close' to you, the lights come in scattered, were as if it's very far away, the light comes in parallel, this is very basic physics.
This below image clearly shows scattered sun light emitted from a point just above the clouds, the explanations by the heliocentric community for this is 'refraction' by the atmosphere, but if you accept this refraction premise it's a catch 22, because that means the shadow and sticks theory including Eratosthenes measurement of the Earth circumference which relies on parallel lights goes OUT THE WINDOW
Which one are you willing to throw out? you either accept the Sun is close due to scatter light which destroys the heliocentric model, or you argue this is refraction of the sun lights by the atmosphere, which means shadow/stick and circumference measurement is wrong, let me know which one is more convincing to you, because each of them destroys this model.
This is a high altitude balloon at almost 20 miles, notice the huge reflection sun spot, this tells you the sun is very close to you, if it was 93 million miles away, the whole horizon would be a sun-spot.
Here is a closer view of the same image, does that look like it's 93 million miles away ?
