What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?

I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.

There isn't a unique proof as of yet that can be verifiable, just as there isn't one of a round rotating earth that can be verifiable, so it's stale mate and is best left to each persons preference until such a time as undeniable concrete proof is put forward either way that cannot be anything other than the truth.
If you can think of one, put it forward.
You've seen all the reasons for and against and it's still being argued, so I think that should tell you , me and everyone else that nothing is done and dusted and likely never will be...but there's always hope that some genius will come up with something that scuppers the rotating round earth theory.
The trouble is, there's so much magic made up for the round earth theory, I'm sure they would come up with another piece of magic to account for it.

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

Quote from: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

You can say that about yourself, but my own logic and common sense should tell me what you conclude?

i have nothing to add at the moment, but i want this thread to appear in my show new replies to your posts listing.

SO LIKE NOBODY MOVE IT TO CN PLEASE

thank you.

I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.

Read this book.
           http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

just as there isn't one of a round rotating earth that can be verifiable

Oh no there is, just because you don't believe in facts doesn't make it not true. At the end of the day most of us RE'rs don't care about your guys' magic flat earth because we already know the truth, i'm just here because I like to argue.

Read this book.
           http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Thank you for the link. I'll take a look at it when I have time, and see what I can put my take on it.

Quote from: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 20, 2013, 06:13:49 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 20, 2013, 06:13:49 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

As the OP says though. It's unique proofs needed. I have no qualms about some of the stuff you say and I'm not in a position to say they are wrong, as in "I know" just the same as I don't know about the flat earth in it's entirety and I have to go on my own thinking, which from what I have seen on answers given out so far, the flat earth in general makes a lot more sense but I don't go along with some of the explanations for certain things to do with it as there are different variations.

In the rotating globe model, there is only one outlook, as it's an accepted fact model which requires no scrutinisation as far as people who go along with it, go.

If a car moves, it can move by magnetic force, hamster power,water wave power, Sun radiation heat power, blah blah, but the only clues to how it all works is by looking at it and lifting the bonnet then looking at the engine, then seeing a fuel cap at the side and from there you can start to get a small idea of how it manages to run, then taking it apart and mapping out what's what, you can figure our it's fuel and how that fuel makes it run and how the parts allow it to happen.

What I'm getting at is, this cannot be observed as a truth by looking at it from a telescope, you need to be around it to see how it fully works.
The universe is no different and there's some very good guesses, or theories but none of them could be completely correct.

Quote from: darknavyseal on March 21, 2013, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 20, 2013, 06:13:49 PM

Quote from: Bollybill on March 20, 2013, 06:10:11 PM

There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.

There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.
-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.
-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.
-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.
-GPS.
-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)
-Ships dropping below horizons.
-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).
-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.
-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.
-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)


All of these "evidences" are merely things that support the very simple notion of gravity. They do not scream "ROUND EARTH!", but they do heavily support the idea of it.
In FE, one must say, bendy light, bendy light, smart bendy light, perspective (?), UA (?), glowing animals on the moon (??), global conspiracy involving millions of people....

which one sounds more logically sound?

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?

Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.

See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents

-Midnight sun in antarctica because the earth is tilted which allows that to happen.

See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents

-Same sun effect happens in the north pole.

This happens in the classic model.

-Large maps MUST use the curvature of the earth, otherwise, discrepancies happen.

Do you mean like how Greenland is larger than Africa in your Mercator maps, yet people still manage to use it to navigate?

-GPS.

LORAN

-Sunsets. Sunrises. (Keep in mind, I am NOT accepting Electromagnetic Acceleration at this time, because so far, just like RE, we don't have proofs.)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

-Ships dropping below horizons.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect

-satellites (TV, Radio, GPS, whatever).

Stratellites

-Insanely accurate predictions on cosmological events. Not perfect, but pretty darn close.

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

-This is a side note, but in the sky, there appear to be giant galaxy like things just like ours in the night sky which are very far away. This tells me that the stars are not, in fact, a mere couple thousand miles above us.

The stars look like small specs in the sky. They do not look like giant things light years away.

-Always day somewhere. (Again, not using EA yet.)

It's also always day somewhere in the classical and bi-polar models.

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.

Quote

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.

Source?

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 21, 2013, 10:08:31 AM

Quote

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

The ancient babylonians couldn't predict much and not accurately at all until the middle of the 1st millenium BC, when they realized that earth must be curved. This is contrary to common belief, but for the longer part of their history babylonian astronomy was very primitive. They didn't even try to get their math in perfect harmony with the observed data. If, for example, a planet arrived over the horizon sooner than expected, they didn't conclude, that there was a flaw in their conceptions, but simply saw it as a bad omen. Since the planets were gods, they could actually come and go as they pleased, and it was out of grace, that they obbeyed to their eclyptical paths to keep the cosmos running.

Source?

Sources for old babylonian astronomy are scarce, the priests, so it seems, transmitted their knowledge orally. In middle babylonian times we have the Enuma Anu Enlil. It was something like the Tetrabyblos of the Babylonians. There may be an english translation of at least parts of the text. But you will be dissapointed, it just tells what will happen on earth when that and that happens in the sky.
A number of cuniform texts with astronomical observations, mainly ephemerides, are extant from old babylonian times on, so the sudden rise in expertise during the neo-babylonian times is observable. There are a number of studies about the subject, but I had to go to a subject library to tell you.
By the way the Chaldaeans didn't adopt a global earth, but they finally understood that it's curved. So the late babylonian system has a shield-shaped earth. The conceptions were hardly uniform though, for there were many schools, but that we know next to nothing about.

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 01:20:49 PM

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

What do you mean by sources? I could list you a number of books.

EDIT: The classic on the subject is Otto Neugebauer's Exact sciences in antiquity. A more recent author is Asger Hartvig Aaboe. The wikipedia article on bab. astronomy is largely based on his work. It contains also a small bibliography.

-Stars in the sky in the south pole rotate just like the ones in the North Pole, perfectly explained by a round rotating earth.

See the Bi-Polar model: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Layout_of_the_Continents

The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.
-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?
-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

So, please. Stop mentioning this, and while you are at it, you might as well remove it from the FAQ, because it is woefully ignorant of many known facts, round or flat earth. It is just silly.

Do you mean like how Greenland is larger than Africa in your Mercator maps, yet people still manage to use it to navigate?

That is used to navigate only because up-down-left-right are north-south-west-east. That's it. Area is inaccurate. Google it. Oh wait, dont. Google is probably controlled by NASA too.

-side note. Acting like an FE guy now. How the hell do you know that greenland isn't larger than Africa? Have you personally mapped it out? Post back when you do, please. /end FE type rant.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.


Again, my list of "evidences" is not actual evidence. They are things that happen to perfectly coincide with the RE model. Look at Tom's response.

-2 (no, 3) bipolar model references despite that map being extremely flawed.
-Thinking that the mercator projection is used for travel and is accurate with area of land masses.
-Weird perspective things. Not a negative point, as it just doesn't make sense to me, so I can't say it is wrong. I will read that chapter in Earth Not a Globe later today.
-more conspiracy stuff.

Tom does have a fantastic rebuttal to the cosmological predictions. 

The stars look like small specs in the sky. They do not look like giant things light years away.

Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.
Another anomaly in FE? No! Here is an explanation! Maybe the stars are giant fireflies with magical powers that prevent magnification of their glowing butts. Goes right in line with the glowing moon shrimp. I expect this to be in the FAQ by tomorrow.

Anyway, my point was, every summer for me at least, I am able to see the Milky Way galaxy on a dark clear night. It really looks like all the other millions of galaxies in the sky. Why is ours so huge? There are billions of galaxies visible if you have the equipment to find them. Are those really tiny galaxies?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 01:20:49 PM

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm

"The Babylonian temple astronomers, who were in fact called  tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil, had been observing the skies for centuries and had recorded their observations in Astronomical diaries, astronomical almanacs, catalogues of stars and other texts. We possess observations of Venus written down under king Ammisaduqa (1646-1626 according to the Middle Chronology), detailed stellar catalogues from the eighth century -our Zodiac was invented in Babylon-, and astronomical diaries from the seventh century until the first century BCE.

Because there were many data available to Babylonian astronomers, their results could be pretty accurate. An example is the length of the synodic month, i.e., the period between two full moons, which they were able to establish with an error of only a couple of minutes. The same can be said for the length of the year.

Using these data, Babylonian astronomers were able to predict lunar eclipses and - later - solar eclipses with a fair accuracy. Their tool was the Saros-cycle: this is the period of 223 synodic months (or 18 years and 11.3 days) after which lunar and solar eclipses repeat themselves. E.g., when you know that there has been a solar eclipse on 18 May 603 BCE at dawn, you can be confident that there is an almost similar eclipse on 28 May 585 at sunset."

And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia! 

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

Quote from: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 02:22:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 01:20:49 PM

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

What do you mean by sources? I could list you a number of books.

EDIT: The classic on the subject is Otto Neugebauer's Exact sciences in antiquity. A more recent author is Asger Hartvig Aaboe. The wikipedia article on bab. astronomy is largely based on his work. It contains also a small bibliography.

Thanks Homesick Martian.  Tom Bishop: Can you provide the source for your Babylonian claims?

The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.

The midnight sun does not occur at the North and South Pole at once. It occurs once during the Northern Summer and once during the Southern Summer.

-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?

What makes you think there is an edge?

-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

Compared to what?

Quote

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.

The stars remain the same size throughout the night because they get bigger by the atmosphere as they recede

The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.

Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.

The stars are also magnified. This is why they don't shrink into tiny dots as they approach the horizon.

Astronomical events are predicted through studying past occurrences, finding a pattern in timing, and predicting when the next event will occur.

Sometimes, not always.

Quote from: Rama Set

The bipolar model has been debunked like a million (exaggeration) times by now. Please stop bringing it up. It brings more problems than the questions that it answers.
Just a few extremely stupid things that must happen according to the "bipolar model".

-2 suns required at midnight sun occurrences in both the north and south pole. One to rotate around pole, one to go around in a figure 8 pattern to bring light to the rest of the earth.

The midnight sun does not occur at the North and South Pole at once. It occurs once during the Northern Summer and once during the Southern Summer.

Quote from: Rama Set

-No wall surrounding us? Why haven't we found the edge? What is holding the ocean in?

What makes you think there is an edge?

Quote from: Rama Set

-Shapes of continents are massively distorted.

Compared to what?

Quote from: Rama Set

Quote

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Does not explain why every celestial body is almost the exact same size instead of shrinking as it goes off into the distance. And, like many others have posted, the sun will never be less than about 10 degrees above the horizon, due to its size and closeness to Earth in the FE model.

The stars remain the same size throughout the night because they get bigger by the atmosphere as they recede

The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.

Quote from: Rama Set

Yes. Yes they do. I wonder how when the sun goes farther away from us it is "magnified" by our atmosphere in order to keep the same size, but all the stars remain the same size as they approach to the horizon.

The stars are also magnified. This is why they don't shrink into tiny dots as they approach the horizon.

None of the quotes in your post actually belong to me. Would you mind properly attributing them?  Thanks!

Quote from: Rama Set on March 21, 2013, 02:22:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2013, 01:20:49 PM

I believe I asked for a source for your claims.

Its a good question.  Could you also provide the source of your claim about the Babylonians?

We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm

"The Babylonian temple astronomers, who were in fact called  tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil, had been observing the skies for centuries and had recorded their observations in Astronomical diaries, astronomical almanacs, catalogues of stars and other texts. We possess observations of Venus written down under king Ammisaduqa (1646-1626 according to the Middle Chronology), detailed stellar catalogues from the eighth century -our Zodiac was invented in Babylon-, and astronomical diaries from the seventh century until the first millenium BCE.

Because there were many data available to Babylonian astronomers, their results could be pretty accurate. An example is the length of the synodic month, i.e., the period between two full moons, which they were able to establish with an error of only a couple of minutes. The same can be said for the length of the year.

Using these data, Babylonian astronomers were able to predict lunar eclipses and - later - solar eclipses with a fair accuracy. Their tool was the Saros-cycle: this is the period of 223 synodic months (or 18 years and 11.3 days) after which lunar and solar eclipses repeat themselves. E.g., when you know that there has been a solar eclipse on 18 May 603 BCE at dawn, you can be confident that there is an almost similar eclipse on 28 May 585 at sunset."

And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia! 

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

All these examples are from late babylonian times. My point waqs not that the Chaldaeans were bad astronomers, but that they needed a long time to get there. The famous astronomers like Kidinnu were contemporarys of the first greek astronomers. There is no connection between this elaborate astronomy of classical times, that you are talking about, and the old babylonian flat earth cosmology with its dome shaped heaven. The  accuracy of observation and mesurement, the counting of the saros cycle - all babylonian astronomy was known for happened quite late in its history. They were indeed the foremost astronomers in the ancient world, but scientific astronomy was a LATE development, they didn't have it from early times on.  And, what's important in this case, they couldn't have made these achievements without discovering that earth is curved (not necessarily spherical).

EDIT: I don't claim the Babylonians had no astronomy from ancient times on. They certainly observed the movements of the planets and kept records on strange phenomena like eclipses. But until about the neoassyrian empire (7th century) their countings were quite bad and they made huge mistakes. Astronomy proper, as a science, begins in the middle of the 1st millenium BC. Its more an achievement of the mediterranean area as a whole than of any particular culture like the "Babylonians" or the "Greeks".

EDIT II: this is the point I aim at:

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat

No. Because when the Babylonians had finally learned how to predict events they had also learned that earth is not flat.

The sun sets because the vanishing point is not an infinite distance away as taught in art school.

So parallel lines aren't actually parallel then?

A better arguement for FET than Babylonian astronomy would be Chinese astronomy. My implicite statement was, that accurate astronomical observations and predictions are not possible without knowledge that earth is curved. But Chinese astronomy as far as I know never incorporated this knowledge, and yet they did make accurate observations. I know next to nothing about Chinese astronomy, but since it seems to be the only example in history of a real flat earth astronomy, it should be quite interesting for FEs.

EDIT I wrote all that quite late in the night so it's a little chaotic. Tom Bishop's mistake was to take the Babylonians as a whole. Just because they had a flat earth cosmology doesn't mean that Babylonian astronomers believed in a flat earth. They had overcome this world view, just as 17th centuries astronomers had overcome the world view of the middle ages.
The Chinese never did until they learned modern astronomy from the Jesuits.  That's a stunning fact to me.