Should I continue?
You shouldn't have started this shameless parade of stupidity in the first place, because you haven't slightest idea what you are talking about...I have thought that this forum doesn't tolerate trolls like you...I was obviously wrong...And if you dared to contradict me claiming that you are not a troll, then you should bare in mind that you will have to prove correctness of your claims by elaborating validity of your undoubtedly false claims with concrete (counter) arguments. Arrogantly parading with your false assertions won't make your (non-existant) "round" arguments any stronger, and won't make you look any smarter than you really are also!
Emphasis added.
*Ahem* Instead of just slagging each other, lets look at one "proof" claimed in one of your links. I picked the "
Southern Cross" example because I think Crux is a cool constellation. The refutation for the visibility of Acrux at -63.16 declination from 28 North latitude is incorrect, but that's not what I want to point out. We can talk about that later if you want.
Consider the next "proof", as summarized in this illustration from the same link:
Refer to the link for the full text of the explanation offered, but here's the problem with the argument, starting about 2/3 of the way through the explanation:
"Persons living further north than this [Tropic of Cancer] have always to look in a southerly direction for the sun at noon ; and it ought therefore never to be seen to the north of them at any time, so we must place the sun in the diagram somewhere on the line P F G. Let it be placed at any point P. Now it is manifest that for an observer at M, near the latitude of Haparanda, to see the sun at midnight at P, over the tropic at Cancer, he would have to to look downwards and be able to see right through the "Globe" for about five or six thousand miles along the dotted line MR!!"
Two fatal errors are immediately obvious.
One of which is that "Point P" can't be "any" point along the line FG. If P were immediately to the left of F instead of its presented position, the elevation angle to P from R would become lower; if P were moved further away, the elevation angle from R would increase. In fact, the elevation angle to the Sun, represented by P in the drawing, from R in the situation described, is fixed by nature, so the assertion that P can be
anywhere along line through FG is false.
Even worse, if the Sun is directly above the Tropic of Cancer, it would have to be along the line through
line EF (also KEF), not the line through
line FG. Call this point P' (P prime). Add to this that P' has to be effectively at infinity because the Sun is vastly farther away than the radius of the circle, EM, and badda-bing, badda-boom(!) the rays P'M (shown as the line through Point 2 to Point M in Diagram 1) are parallel to ray P'F(E(K)). Thus, you see Point P' (the Sun) from Point M without looking through the Earth.
QED.
OK, since we're here, let's look at Acrux anyway. The author of the quote just brushes off "altitude" and "refraction" as factors in being able to see stars that "should" be one degree below the horizon.
As in the overly blustery (but not unusual when you're trying to bluff):
No "altitude" or/and "refraction" excuse will suffice to cover up the only possible solution that we can use to convincingly explain this phenomena, and that one and only convincing explanation is of course FLAT EARTH theory and nothing but the FLAT EARTH obvious fact
Let's actually look at the data instead of just dismissing it, shall we?
From an altitude of 2300m above sea level, a sea-level horizon will be about 170 km away and
a little more than 1.5 degrees below horizontal. Further, while refraction can add about 1/2 degree of apparent elevation to an object on the horizon when viewed from sea level, if you let that ray continue through the relatively thick atmosphere for another 170 km, it will continue to look
even higher. Not a lot higher, mind you, but it ain't gonna be less than 1/2 degree. So now, in this situation, a star that is geometrically 1 degree below horizontal will appear about
1 degree above your horizon. These things matter.
This is pretty poor stuff. Is there any reason to think the rest of the links contain anything better?
[Edit] Minor correction indicated by strikethroughs.