When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a flat Earth.
The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.
The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.
The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a flat Earth.
On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.
It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.
It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.
How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?
Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.
Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.
How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?
The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.
The observable behaviour of accelerating objects anywhere in the known Universe demonstrates the effects of inertia, a phenomenon which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of an accelerating flat Earth without falling off.
The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.
Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).
Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by travelling west along the 60 degrees south line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous right turn (or by traveling east on the same line, executing a continuous left turn).
Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.
In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.
In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our Earth is, at least approximately, flat.
In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to
go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.
And again, I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "it looks flat" from the flat earth theorists.