...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.

Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?

I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

I wouldn't call a globe flat, but I would call it a non-euclidean closed surface.

A pizza box is square shaped. So is Tiananmen Square.

Is Tiananmen Square a pizza box?

...as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation.

Isn't "non-euclidean closed flat plane" pretty much just a fancy way of saying "globe"?

I don't know, Markjo. Is a globe flat?

ummm...Here is a definition of Non-Euclidean geomentyr from a simple Google Search

**What is non Euclidean geometry used for?**

A non-Euclidean geometry is a rethinking and redescription of the properties of things like points, lines, and other shapes in a non-flat world. Spherical geometry—which is sort of plane geometry warped onto the surface of a sphere—is one example of a non-Euclidean geometry.Oct 17, 2014

What Are Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry?

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/.../what-are-euclidean-and-non-euclidean-geometry

A non-euclidean geometry is one which breaks or loosens one (or more) of Euclid's axioms. There shouldn't have been a need to google that.

Most often, this is done by relaxing or removing the parallel postulate which historically has a lot of contention around it.

Why not?

Euclid's Elements represents almost all the geometry you learned throughout grade school. It is one of the most notable and known non-fiction books of all time. For over two thousand years it served as the textbook on the subject. When someone says "non-euclid" geometry, you should be able to guess that its a geometry that is against the most notable work in geometry of all time.

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth? It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Ok, I am sure somebody that can explain this issue much better than I will respond. But how about you do the same with simple one. How come there is no accurate Flat Earth Map that reflects anything close to reality?

I solved this problem first in the 2000s with a collapsing state map. More recently, it is solved also by myself in the relativistic model - as the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed flat plane whose 3 dimensional projection would be more or less a globe - explaining the accuracy of the globe in spite of its inaccurate interpretation. There are a number of other solutions out there, many of which can be found here on our forums.

You solved the *Flat Earth has no map* problem back in the naughts? Please share the solution with us. Which state?

This is the same problem I posit, perhaps. Why are the distances to all these locations inaccurate given the supposed curve of the earth and how far we can see?

Which one(s)? Since you can't seem to name any specific examples and instead substitute references that are too vague to be addressed, I'm going to call your bluff and say there are no natural objects on earth whose distances apart cannot be explained using the geoid (when necessary... otherwise, ellipsoid, or sphere, depending on how far apart they are and the degree of accuracy needed) and atmosphere. If you think you do know of any, why don't you start with one, and state where and how much you think the discrepancy is? Otherwise, there is nothing to explain.

Well, Tom is in this thread. He has discussed the Monterey Bay Experiment at great length several times in the past.

The Bishop Experiment is nothing more than an anecdote, not an experiment. No evidence, just someone saying they could see kids playing with a frisbee on a beach 22 miles away. That's the best example you have?

I'd have to dig up the collapsing state one. I'll see if I have time later, but its the little ones birthday tomorrow so my time is a bit limited.

The Bay Experiment is an experiment, one that has been repeated many times. Why do you think it is not one?

As far as the example, I wasn't providing "the best example I have". I was providing a simple one to solve, one would guess. And instead, you have hand waved, showing that the roundist is not up to the task.