troll

I've told you five times

So your saying it’s curved but you can’t prove the curvature with the common excuse of
“It’s too big”
So can you show me something that you CAN Prove?

where has the curve been measured

?

@Soldz (CF) lol
Naturalism contradicts itself
No wonder why it’s dying

We can take an orange and a flash light. As I move the flash light around the orange, the light doesn't hit the back off it. Now if we added particles and gases that reflect light around the orange, light would reflect. So if we added a body behind the orange, light would then reflect onto the body behind said orange. Now if we were to put a very small person on that orange, in similar ratio of a human to the Earth, it would seem as if the orange is flat. Though in all reality it isn't.

I can't accept an argument from you if you call it an illogical fallacy when the correct phrase is a logical fallacy. @Soldz (CF)

https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

here ya go

@California Nightmare Ikr

try to debunk these arguments by urself

have fun

tag me when you can debunk these arguments

debunk the fact earth is in a container

tg me when u can

tag me when u can

@DeltaA350
They have already been debunked
The moon doesn’t prove anything and Ships don’t go over a curve

And shadows work on a flat earth

After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted, “There are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface, Aristotle continued, claiming that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the "known" constellations go towards the horizon, to be replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:

@DeltaA350
They have already been debunked
The moon doesn’t prove anything and Ships don’t go over a curve

And shadows work on a flat earth

@jeremy well, we can. When an asteroid orbits near the Earth and enters the atmosphere for a period of time then bounces right back into the deep unknown, wouldn't it hit the container? But we see that it doesn't hit a container.

Standing on a flat plateau, you look ahead toward the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.
Next, climb up the closest tree—the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. Then look again, strain your eyes, and stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.
The higher up you climb, the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles—like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view—but that’s not the true reason. Even if you stood on a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from the greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomenon is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:

are the stars in your imaginary sky vacuum u believe in ?

@DeltaA350 no copy pasta

Use your own arguments @DeltaA350

lol those are my arguments

@Pence It literally is an illogical fallacy and it is why most people shouldn't bother bringing it up because you saying "Hey look in the sky! Look at those objects that are sphere shaped! We must be a sphere as well!" And that isn't how it is both measured and actually framed as we know about the earth's actual shape through many ways

you want me to come up with some genius argument that isn't on the internet already?

Research the longest distance picture guys:
440km away, taken from 2820 meters high.
The mountain should be hidden 5 km below the curve...... it's flat
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial. Do the math

so are u saying the second law of thermodynamics is wrong ?

@Soldz (CF) it is called a logical fallacy. If you don't know the correct phrase, I believe it is safe to assume that you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

@California Nightmare why do the masts of ships appear first?

So a bs article written by someone that doesn’t know how Perspective works or how science works is your argument? @DeltaA350
Lmao

Perspective and angular resolution

and if you look at Chicago from across lake Michigan, you realize that you can't see Chicago's ground level?

@Soldz (CF) not an argument, just memeing your way through this with speculation.

You can @DeltaA350

and if you are higher up, you see further b/c earth is a globe?

no u can't there are photos