<@!526765197059162113> 1) can you prove it's the sun light hitting the moon from 93 million miles away?
2) nope, its called angular resolution
3) you can't see curvature on an airplane, even your globehead cult leaders like neil says so and ask an airplane pilot if he has ever seen the curve
4) again because of angular resolution, the more far you are the more things will look like they are setting
5) this still work on the flat earth model if you add the assumption that the earth is flat and sun is close
boom debunked

i skipped the "other planets are round therefore the earth is round" because it's a non sequitar, you haven't proven that the earth is like other planets

it does

HOW BIG IT BE?

globe heads can't use facts so they like ad hominems

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+earth+round%3F&rlz=1C1ASUM_enAU713AU713&oq=is+the+earth+round%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8996j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

damn another appeal to popular belief!

lol

i wonder when you will learn

//the shadow of the Earth on the Moon is circular// I take it you've never tried to make a shadow on a sphere with another sphere? Nothing goes below the Earth you numbnut. Physically impossible.

//ships sailing away behind the horizon disappear bottom first//

If ships were going over a curve, it would be like something going over a mountain. Nose-first, back-end last. That's never been seen.

//the visible curvature of the Earth from a plane window//

Never been seen nor documented. Try harder if you really want to troll this place.

//the fact that other planets are round//

What planets? All those ones you've been to and walked on and see the curvature of? Or all those cartoons you still believe in despite trying to impersonate an immature teenager?

//the different stars in the night sky in the North and South hemispheres//

Oh you mean like how everything we see with distance is also different, like mountains, buildings, everything else... you think stars shouldn't also change with distance? What are you, like 5?

//the change in the length of the shadow from vertical stick allowed Eratosthenes to estimate the radius of the Earth around 200 BC. Although not entirely straightforward, anyone can in principle reproduce this.//

Yeah, you're out of your pay-grade with stuff like that. I can line up a row of batteries across my desk and by measuring the angles of their shadows, derive a formula for how spherical my flat desk is... does maths mean my flat desk is a sphere?

we're not fes

so get bent with the controlled op crap

heres a fact that you seem to have ignored, you can use the heliocentric model to predict the position of neptune how can a false model make predictions?

and? is it that hard to believe most people might be wrong?

@The One & Only *ITS FULL

since the greeks existed, they've been using a geocentric model and were able to predict the position of stars in advance

debunked

Predictions still work from the stationary planar Earth because that's all they've ever been made from in the first place

no according to the geocentric model there is no gravity in the "celestial realm"

basically you claim there is no mutual attraction between heavenly bodies

the og greeks like thales were flat earthers get rekt globeheads

<@!526765197059162113> why are there so few geniuses yet so many amongst the masses who believe what they're told?

Deport the frogs vote

<@!526765197059162113> how come you have to come in here and use fallacious logic? your model should leave you better equipped

anotha one

yet that false gravity can explain anomalies in the motion of planets and that anomaly can be traced to another planet never observed before

that planet being neptune

<@!526765197059162113> correct

or what

also the greeks never predicted the positions of planets which is what neptune was