Convince me the earth is a spinning speeding ball with clues from earth.

Why do you continue to make the same threads over and over?
You've been shown repeatedly. If you don't agree, why start another thread? Do you crave attention?

Look how flat and level the water surface looks.

You seem quite impressed with how things “look”  Ok, let’s talk about how things look.  Watch the sun’s path across the sky: it LOOKS like it travels in a circular path.  It LOOKS like it goes underground (or into the sea if you are on a western coast) at night.  It LOOKS like it pops out of the ground (or rises from the sea if you are on an eastern coast) in the morning.  Watch the stars: it LOOKS like they do the same thing.  Watch a ship sail away from you.  It LOOKS like it sinks a few miles away, all hands lost.  Watch an airplane fly across the ocean.  It LOOKS like it flies into the sea a few miles beyond where the ship appeared to sink, killing all passengers and crew.  And yet we know that ship didn’t sink, we know that plane arrived at some faraway land across the sea.  We know the sun does not drop into the ocean or emerge from it.  We know this, and we acknowledge that things sometimes LOOK like one thing, but ARE something else.

I don’t understand why the FE fetish with “it looks flat, it must be flat” overrides all the evidence that make things look round.  Especially when the explanation for why it looks flat is so easy and obvious: IT’S ENORMOUSLY HUGELY BIG and you’re only looking at a tiny part of it.

The following argument requires only your eyes, and maybe a watch and a car.

No matter where you go, with the exception of the North and South polar regions, the sun sets behind the horizon. When this occurs, the sun is roughly the same size it was throughout the day, with some slight variation due to atmospheric distortion. The horizon obscures first a portion of the sun, and then the entirety. The sun does not shrink to nothing, nor does it turn away. It is physically blocked from casting light upon you by the horizon. We can support that claim by the observable fact that the sun continues to illuminate high altitude clouds above us and that there is a visible shadow cast upon the clouds which makes its way towards the horizon until there is no illumination from the sun whatsoever, and night has fully fallen.

Now, at this point, if you accept that the sun if visible somewhere on the Earth at all times, and that timezones are a reasonable way of dividing up the 24 hour day to account for the sun setting at different times in different zones, then the argument is done. If you don't, you're welcome to drive Westward by a timezone or two and observe that the sun does indeed set at a different time. I've personally driven across the continental US as well as flown from Seattle to NY & Hawaii, and can attest that this is indeed something that happens. The difference is even more noticeable the further away you fly.

And...that's it. That's all you need to observe. Sunsets coupled with the sun always being visible somewhere on Earth requires that the Earth at least be cylindrical in shape. It is simply not possible on a flat Earth. For the sun to be physically obscured by the horizon, but still visible further westward at all times cannot occur in any of the proposed flat Earth models.

Foucault pendulum demonstrated. (It involves math, so you might want to ignore this, too, PO.)

It appears there is no proof at all.

Yes. When you ignore all the proof, there appears to be no proof at all, to you, and to everyone else, you look like a pathetic child ignoring the obvious to stick to your delusions.

Have a look at this and see what you think.
Globalists will see pretty unicorns and fairy dust.
I want realists and free thinking genuine people to ponder this.

Bullshit.
Every time you have said something like that what you have really meant is that you want ignorant gullible fools to just accept it without thinking or question.

And that appears to be the case this time.
The video spends ages just getting to the point.
Yes, Earth is tilted on its axis.
Guess what? The apparent angle of Earth changes.
It is a slow process and thus you do not readily notice it as you watch the video. However, if you compare 2 images, say the one at roughly 30-31 seconds, showing Australia well below centre, and Antarctica not visible at all (August); and say the one at 1:15 (December), with Australia almost centred, and Antarctica clearly visible.

So, while bitching about no tilt being observed, it is quite apparent when comparing the images from different points in the video.

No. They didn't capture the dark side of the moon.
They captured the far side of the moon. The dark side is the side opposite the sun. They will never capture it on EPIC where it is now.
However, the first part of the video was merely the shadow of the moon. The Earth-Moon-Sun-EPIC was not in the correct alignment to view the far side of the moon then.
Notice how the moon's shadow goes above centre, indicating that it would be above the position of EPIC, and thus not visible with the small FOV?

There is no reason for the moon to be visible then. If you think there should be, provide it.

Yes, the satellite orbits the sun as well.
It is sitting in the Earth-Sun L1 point.
Orbits closer to the sun typically experience a greater gravitational acceleration, with a smaller radius and thus have a faster angular velocity.
However, the gravitational attraction of Earth decreases the total acceleration of an object such that at the L1 point, it has the same angular velocity as Earth.
This results in it maintaining the same position relative to the Sun and Earth.
You being ignorant of that doesn't make it impossible.

I can even derive it for you if you like.
There isn't anything magical about it.

When the satellite leaves Earth, why would it magically just fall behind? It has inertia and will keep moving with it, at least to some extent.
The L1 point is one of the points which separates an Earth centred orbit with a sun centred one.
Closer to Earth and you will orbit Earth.
Closer to the sun and you will orbit the sun (and leave Earth behind).

See how actually pondering about it shows the video to be a pile of crap that flat out lies?

Stars rotating above us.

Which you want to ignore because it shows you are wrong.

"The Coriolis effect..."
Has been debunked by many people. Storms rotate in both directions on both sides of the equator. Sink drains and toilets drain in both directions on both sides of the equator I showed a video of the jet stream, along with clouds, crossing over the equator. The meteorologist in the video laid the blame with temperature, not any Coriolis effect.

No. It is yet to be debunked at all, by anyone.
So far all that has been "debunked" is the claim that it will cause small pools of water to drain in one direction.
You are yet to demonstrate that cyclones rotate in both directions on both sides of the equator.
Yes, you showed a jet stream crossing over the equator, which doesn't indicate the Coriolis effect is wrong.

Does earth have a speedometer? Please show it to me!

It is called a laser ring gyroscope and it measures a rotational period of ~23 hours 56 minutes.

When I stand on earth, it feels motionless, I'm sure you agree.

No. I don't.
I am unable to feel motion/motionlessness, as such I cannot say it feels motionless honestly due to the dishonest implication.
It feels motionless in the same way it feels it is travelling at a 200 000 000 km/s. Humans cannot distinguish between the 2.

So it feels like it is moving, I'm sure you agree if you are honest and rational.

My explanation; because earth is a motionless.

Your reason/s the earth feels motionless; ...................................................

As has been explained so many times it isn't funny, YOU DON'T FEEL MOTION!!!!.
When I am sitting in a plane flying through the sky, it feels motionless.
When I am sitting in a car driving along a smooth highway, it feels motionless.

Does that mean both of these are motionless? NO.
Clearly what it means is that humans cannot perceive absolute motion and thus feeling motionless is just irrational crap.

Get ready Occam, they're going to do it again.

No. You have already done it again, making up whatever pathetic excuses you can for why we should allegedly feel the motion of Earth, when the simple fact is we shouldn't, as indicated by numerous objects moving relative to Earth in which you don't feel motion.

Projection is not evidence from earth's physical nature, only the admission in your mind of your lack of evidence. I know, I was there at one point not long ago.

Is that "not long ago" 5 seconds ago?
Because currently you are the one projecting your own inadequacies onto others and having no evidence at all to back up your insane claims.

Look how flat and level the water surface looks.

Not much?
It's all wavy and ripply.

Perspective, land mass, evaporation and waves can account for the bottom obscurity. Move up higher, and you change the floor perspective, you get above the water evaporation and waves.

No it can't.
Perspective just makes objects smaller, it doesn't hide the bottom.
Waves would only hide objects that are below them, or if you are below them. It wont hide distant objects much higher than the waves.
Land masses work in similar ways, only hiding between you and them.
Evaporation can't explain it either.

When you go up higher, the tangent to Earth that meets your eyes is further around.

As far as land mass, look at the bottom of the mountain, you can plainly see foot hills obscuring the bottom of the mountain in the first pic. You may still have an issue with obscurity, depending on how high you go.

Yes, but not all the pics. In some cases, the only thing obscuring your view is the water.
Regardless, it is hiding far more than it should if Earth was flat.

You gotta show me how it supports RE, I don't have to disprove anything. You have an issue with comprehension. What is the title of the thread? "Convince me the earth is a spinning speeding ball with clues from earth."

It has been explained before, and you just ignore it.
You are the one claiming we live on a stationary flat plane.
That means you need to provide an explanation for all these things which a round Earth explains just fine.

Remember what you said, the only person that can convince you, is you.
Or don't you agree with that now?

How do the items on your list support we are on a spinning speeding ball?

Want to go through it point by point?
Let's start with Foucault's pendulum?
This relies upon the Coriolis effect.

We can ignore the up-down part, as that is countered by gravity, but in a straight line, it starts moving in some direction with some speed.
This is partly due to its own motion relative to Earth, and also due to Earth's rotation.
While moving, the path of Earth's rotation is changing, resulting in appearing to curve off to the side.
This results in the plane of oscillation appearing to rotate.
The speed and direction is based upon where it is on Earth, with it having a period of 23 hours and 56 minutes at the poles, and a longer period as you approach the equator, where it becomes infinite.

Now what is your explanation for it on a flat Earth?

Have a look at this and see what you think.
Globalists will see pretty unicorns and fairy dust.
I want realists and free thinking genuine people to ponder this.

Sorry to bump this, but this video is hilarious. Okay, if you do not understand orbital mechanics and know nothing about lagrangian points, that is fine. But he rambles about the non-visible tilt of earths axis, YET IT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE!
When you watch the video you will notice that over the first quarter length antartica becomes more and more visible as it is tilted towards the satellite. Then it starts to recede and in the end you can clearly see the north pole tilted towards the satellite. He literally showed a video of the earth tilting and asked where the earth tilts. You can not get more stupid than this.

More curvature:

Bottom of Manhattan disappeared!

http://www.vincentmounier.com/blog2/new-york-city-from-a-whales-perspective/

I want realists and free thinking genuine people to ponder this.

Flat Earthers are most definitely NOT free thinkers. 
Evidence provided that contradicts their claims... must be false. 
Reason why its must be false and everyone doesn't think the same way they do, well that's a huge conspiracy.
Why is there a conspiracy, well to make money.
How do they make money on it, well there are no answers to this, it is a conspiracy yaou know.

Simple scientific evidence that can be backed up by simple math, oh math is too hard, or math is fake.

Free thinkers?  If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  They have to ignore almost everything to support their delusions.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2017, 02:50:19 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 31, 2017, 02:24:27 AM

I know can't, there is no evidence of such. But hey, give it your best shot...............................

You have already been provided evidence, you ignored it.
What's the point in providing it again?

Will you listen this time?
I doubt it.

Why restrict it to Earth?
Why ignore all the other evidence out there?

No evidence in this post, move on folks.

Translation:  Of course I won't listen. All I can do is ignore it. 

You gotta show me how it supports RE, I don't have to disprove anything.

Yes you do have to prove that the earth is flat. I don't care for your stupid rules.

The earth has been know to be a Globe for at least 2300 years an a heliocentric Globe for at least 400 years.

You are the John-come-lately, so it's up to you to prove your case.

To do that, it would be a good idea for you to find out what evidence convinced people of the day that the earth really was a Globe and finally that it really rotated on its axis and orbited the sun,

So, off you go and learn some history!

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2017, 04:59:01 AM

I want realists and free thinking genuine people to ponder this.

Flat Earthers are most definitely NOT free thinkers. 
Evidence provided that contradicts their claims... must be false. 
Reason why its must be false and everyone doesn't think the same way they do, well that's a huge conspiracy.
Why is there a conspiracy, well to make money.
How do they make money on it, well there are no answers to this, it is a conspiracy yaou know.

Simple scientific evidence that can be backed up by simple math, oh math is too hard, or math is fake.

Free thinkers?  If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  They have to ignore almost everything to support their delusions.

I mentioned realists, free thinkers and genuine people  . Nothing other than that so calm yourself down.

Quote from: physical observer on March 31, 2017, 05:49:56 AM

You gotta show me how it supports RE, I don't have to disprove anything.

Yes you do have to prove that the earth is flat. I don't care for your stupid rules.

The earth has been know to be a Globe for at least 2300 years an a heliocentric Globe for at least 400 years.

You are the John-come-lately, so it's up to you to prove your case.

To do that, it would be a good idea for you to find out what evidence convinced people of the day that the earth really was a Globe and finally that it really rotated on its axis and orbited the sun,

So, off you go and learn some history!

So I guess you really cannot support your position.

"so it's up to you to prove your case."

You entered a thread that started with, "convince me". I guess you cannot rise to the challenge, hey?

Physical Ignorer, we crush you with evidence, and all your do is say, "I can't rebut your evidence, but you lose cuz I say so."

For me, it comes down to a preponderance of evidence. FE can (sort of) explain several phenomena about the Earth. I'll give you that you have an explanation for day and night, spinning stars, seasons, phases of the moon, and maybe a couple of other things. The problem come in when you try to pin down the details. RE is very precise and comprehensive. FE breaks down in the details. The phases of the moon don't quite work because people all over the world would see different phases and on the same night. The seasons don't quite work because the sun would have to accelerate to go through winter (summer in south). FE has only vague guesses about eclipses where RE can predict them decades ahead of time. The idea that hundreds of millions of scientists, government officials, teachers, communications company employees, etc. from rival nations all over the world are cooperating with a RE conspiracy strains credibility beyond reason. Perspective would make the Sun shrink, not stay the same size but disappear from the bottom up. Constellations change from season to season, but other constellations are always there (still no answer for that, eh?).

Sometimes in some ways, FE is almost as good as RE, but it is not as consistently good as RE in all ways and is never better. That is why RE is the superior model--the only reasonable model.

Physical Ignorer, we crush you with evidence, and all your do is say, "I can't rebut your evidence, but you lose cuz I say so."

For me, it comes down to a preponderance of evidence. FE can (sort of) explain several phenomena about the Earth. I'll give you that you have an explanation for day and night, spinning stars, seasons, phases of the moon, and maybe a couple of other things. The problem come in when you try to pin down the details. RE is very precise and comprehensive. FE breaks down in the details. The phases of the moon don't quite work because people all over the world would see different phases and on the same night. The seasons don't quite work because the sun would have to accelerate to go through winter (summer in south). FE has only vague guesses about eclipses where RE can predict them decades ahead of time. The idea that hundreds of millions of scientists, government officials, teachers, communications company employees, etc. from rival nations all over the world are cooperating with a RE conspiracy strains credibility beyond reason. Perspective would make the Sun shrink, not stay the same size but disappear from the bottom up. Constellations change from season to season, but other constellations are always there (still no answer for that, eh?).

Sometimes in some ways, FE is almost as good as RE, but it is not as consistently good as RE in all ways and is never better. That is why RE is the superior model--the only reasonable model.

", we crush you with evidence"

Math from a book, and star gazing is not evidence we live on a spinning speeding ball. Fact is, there is no evidence from earth's nature that supports we live on a spinning speeding ball. Your claim is baseless.

But hey, if you have a video/pic that shows water curving across its surface, let's see it. The sorry excuse, "we can't see it on earth", is not evidence for anything, just a sorry excuse for not having any evidence that supports a spinning speeding ball earth.

What you have is wishful thinking back up by projection.

How many pictures of curvature do you need to see? Toronto, Manhattan, Rainier, Norway, and Ireland haven't been examples enough? Apparently not, so I will go find more for you. Meanwhile, yes, Physical OBSERVER, you do have to explain OBSERVATIONS from the Earth including the night sky and eclipses. RE explains them perfectly and can predict them with incredible precision (watch the eclipse in August--no NASA CGI can paint a shadow across the Earth!).

Quote from: rabinoz on April 01, 2017, 04:00:28 AM

Quote from: physical observer on March 31, 2017, 05:49:56 AM

You gotta show me how it supports RE, I don't have to disprove anything.

Yes you do have to prove that the earth is flat. I don't care for your stupid rules.

The earth has been know to be a Globe for at least 2300 years an a heliocentric Globe for at least 400 years.

You are the John-come-lately, so it's up to you to prove your case.

To do that, it would be a good idea for you to find out what evidence convinced people of the day that the earth really was a Globe and finally that it really rotated on its axis and orbited the sun,

So, off you go and learn some history!

So I guess you really cannot support your position.

"so it's up to you to prove your case."

You entered a thread that started with, "convince me". I guess you cannot rise to the challenge, hey?

I know full well that it is quite impossible to convince some who does not want to be convinced.

I have told you numerous times that evidence for the heliocentric Globe came from astronomical observations, which are just as real as valid as your "clues from earth".
There are

• effects that depend on the rotating earth including the Coriolis effect, which you have not and never will debunk.
  
• instruments which depend for their operation on the rotation of the earth about a North-South axis, such as the marine gyrocompass and the gyro-theodolite, which you have not and never will debunk simply they are instruments that have been in service for many decades and they cannot work on your stationary earth.
  
• and there are now very precise ring-laser gyros that can not only accurately measure the rotation of the earth, but detect minute variations due to water movement, and little old you have not and never will debunk them.

So whatever can or cannot be proved purely from "clues from earth" is quite immaterial, the earth is and always has been a rotating Globe.

You think that you debunk all you like. You imagining that you are winning all the debates you like will not change the facts on little bit!


I suppose you do use the Flat Earth Wiki to get your understanding of the Flat Earth Theory? Look at this:

GravityIn the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.
'Universal Acceleration' is a theory of gravity within the Flat Earth Model. The traditional theory of gravity (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

VELOCITY OF THE EARTH
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to an observer on Earth, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c. It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute "speed" or velocity of the Earth.

More in: Gravity, Unoversal Acceleration

You throw off at the surface of the earth moving at a measly 1000 mph, yet many flat Earthers seem happy with the earth travelling at around 186,000 miles per second! 

Apparently, he has not the slightest idea, what math is.

So, po, stove your finger into your ear and cry "no no no". Keep your imagination that you think outside the box. Live long and happy.

Apparently, he has not the slightest idea, what math is.

So, po, stove your finger into your ear and cry "no no no". Keep your imagination that you think outside the box. Live long and happy.

That's not a very convincing clue.

How many pictures of curvature do you need to see? Toronto, Manhattan, Rainier, Norway, and Ireland haven't been examples enough? Apparently not, so I will go find more for you. Meanwhile, yes, Physical OBSERVER, you do have to explain OBSERVATIONS from the Earth including the night sky and eclipses. RE explains them perfectly and can predict them with incredible precision (watch the eclipse in August--no NASA CGI can paint a shadow across the Earth!).

Water at rest does not curve, it is always flat across its surface. I absolutely proved that in my Hudson Bay thread. So I know your claim of curving surface water is bogus. I asked you'll for time stamps where you claim to see curvature in the videos so I can drop a straight edge to see if you are correct, but all I get is:

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 01, 2017, 06:07:45 AM

How many pictures of curvature do you need to see? Toronto, Manhattan, Rainier, Norway, and Ireland haven't been examples enough? Apparently not, so I will go find more for you. Meanwhile, yes, Physical OBSERVER, you do have to explain OBSERVATIONS from the Earth including the night sky and eclipses. RE explains them perfectly and can predict them with incredible precision (watch the eclipse in August--no NASA CGI can paint a shadow across the Earth!).

Water at rest does not curve, it is always flat across its surface. I absolutely proved that in my Hudson Bay thread. So I know your claim of curving surface water is bogus. I asked you'll for time stamps where you claim to see curvature in the videos so I can drop a straight edge to see if you are correct, but all I get is:

He physical observer: where is your disprove of the Foucault pendulum as we both agreed on before?

I have not seen anything from you about that.
Are you again changing the subject and ignoring questions?

For the love of God, can you please stop using "you'll" as shortened form of "you all", the correct form is "y'all" if you really have to use it. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose and are just trying to come of as an inbred redneck idiot or if that's what you actually are. Oh, and I'm in no way trying to say that all rednecks who use "y'all" are inbred idiots, I'm specifically talking about you physical observer.
Reading the BS you spot in your posts, you certainly come off as a special kind of stupid, impervious to any kind of reasonable thoughts, evidence or explanations. Or at the very least you display an extreme case of intellectual dishonesty.

For the love of God, can you please stop using "you'll" as shortened form of "you all", the correct form is "y'all" if you really have to use it. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose and are just trying to come of as an inbred redneck idiot or if that's what you actually are. Oh, and I'm in no way trying to say that all rednecks who use "y'all" are inbred idiots, I'm specifically talking about you physical observer.

It's been mentioned to him multiple times before.  Either he is doing it on purpose or he just doesn't read most of the replies to him.  i'm thinking it is a combination of both.  Even more hilarious is that he uses that and then corrected someone else's spelling/grammar in another thread.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 01, 2017, 06:07:45 AM

How many pictures of curvature do you need to see? Toronto, Manhattan, Rainier, Norway, and Ireland haven't been examples enough? Apparently not, so I will go find more for you. Meanwhile, yes, Physical OBSERVER, you do have to explain OBSERVATIONS from the Earth including the night sky and eclipses. RE explains them perfectly and can predict them with incredible precision (watch the eclipse in August--no NASA CGI can paint a shadow across the Earth!).

Water at rest does not curve, it is always flat across its surface. I absolutely proved that in my Hudson Bay thread. So I know your claim of curving surface water is bogus. I asked you'll for time stamps where you claim to see curvature in the videos so I can drop a straight edge to see if you are correct, but all I get is:

Your Hudson Bay thread shows that you can't see a curve. Great! We knew that, and it is consistent with RE.

Speaking of crickets: math --crickets

Orion--crickets

Foucault Pendulum--crickets

Eclipses--crickets

Acceleration of sun in Southern orbit? --crickets

Phases of moon appear different in different parts of world--crickets

When your argument falls apart, you change the subject.

First, a simple example: A non stop flight from Los Angeles, USA to Seoul, South Korea takes roughly the same amount of time as a non stop flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago de Chile. On a flat earth, the latter flight would take far longer, would it not? Unless the plane were travelling at supersonic speeds, the similarity of flight time is only possible on a sphere.

Now, let's talk about something we can all relate to - the sky:
Having lived in the southern hemisphere for most of my life, I moved to the northern hemisphere and marvelled at the fact that the stars in the sky were unfamiliar to me. I was seeing the other half of the celestial sphere that I had never seen before.
If the stars seen from the south are different from the ones in the north, we must be seeing a different section of the sky. They also rotate across the course of a night in the same direction and at the same speed in both places.
Now, in a flat earth, all the stars seen from anywhere on the plane would be the same. Instead of a celestial sphere like the one we observe, there would be a celestial disc that remained identical when seen from any point on the earth.
 If said disc were rotating, then the stars in outer/southern latitudes would wheel past faster than those at inner/northern latitudes.
Also, there would only be one pole  star - the apparent lynchpin of This "star disc"
This is not the case.
The stars appear to trace a circular path around Polaris in the north and Sigma Octanis in the south.
This is only possible if the perspective of the observer moves over the surface of a rotating sphere.

The phases of the moon are dependent on the relative positions of the moon and the sun. If the moon and the sun were circling each other as in the celebrated "yin yang" gif that tried to explain time zones, both would always be visible in the sky at all times and the moon would only ever have one phase - half-illuminated. The moon would also appear to shrink in the distance as it "set" or receded over the disc.
This is not the case.
Side note - if the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so are the sun and moon. What's keeping them up there?

If the sun is tracing a large circle above the earth disc, there should be latitudes where it is always visible.  In fact, anything "inside" that arc would be in perpetual daylight. In the yin yang model, that covers most of Europe, Asia and North America. Even if the light from the sun is somehow blocked by something lile shutters on a stage light, its beam would always be visible - if we are indeed on a flat disc, then we should be able to see all light-casting celestial bodies at all times - they would never touch the horizon, only recede and shrink in the sky.
This is not the case.

Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth' s surface, underneath the yin yang sun. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse and, like the moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.

The basic models that the Flat Earth puts forward are flawed, and fundamentally so. Their predictions do not match what is observed. And the explanation that everyone is in on the lie does not comply with Occam's Razor - that implies centuries, if not millennia of conspiracy, massive amounts of time, energy and money spent on deception and finely tuned international orchestration of infinitely detailed false science.
That doesn't sound very simple to me.

First, a simple example: A non stop flight from Los Angeles, USA to Seoul, South Korea takes roughly the same amount of time as a non stop flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago de Chile. On a flat earth, the latter flight would take far longer, would it not? Unless the plane were travelling at supersonic speeds, the similarity of flight time is only possible on a sphere.

Now, let's talk about something we can all relate to - the sky:
Having lived in the southern hemisphere for most of my life, I moved to the northern hemisphere and marvelled at the fact that the stars in the sky were unfamiliar to me. I was seeing the other half of the celestial sphere that I had never seen before.
If the stars seen from the south are different from the ones in the north, we must be seeing a different section of the sky. They also rotate across the course of a night in the same direction and at the same speed in both places.
Now, in a flat earth, all the stars seen from anywhere on the plane would be the same. Instead of a celestial sphere like the one we observe, there would be a celestial disc that remained identical when seen from any point on the earth.
 If said disc were rotating, then the stars in outer/southern latitudes would wheel past faster than those at inner/northern latitudes.
Also, there would only be one pole  star - the apparent lynchpin of This "star disc"
This is not the case.
The stars appear to trace a circular path around Polaris in the north and Sigma Octanis in the south.
This is only possible if the perspective of the observer moves over the surface of a rotating sphere.

The phases of the moon are dependent on the relative positions of the moon and the sun. If the moon and the sun were circling each other as in the celebrated "yin yang" gif that tried to explain time zones, both would always be visible in the sky at all times and the moon would only ever have one phase - half-illuminated. The moon would also appear to shrink in the distance as it "set" or receded over the disc.
This is not the case.
Side note - if the earth is accelerating upwards at 1g, so are the sun and moon. What's keeping them up there?

If the sun is tracing a large circle above the earth disc, there should be latitudes where it is always visible.  In fact, anything "inside" that arc would be in perpetual daylight. In the yin yang model, that covers most of Europe, Asia and North America. Even if the light from the sun is somehow blocked by something lile shutters on a stage light, its beam would always be visible - if we are indeed on a flat disc, then we should be able to see all light-casting celestial bodies at all times - they would never touch the horizon, only recede and shrink in the sky.
This is not the case.

Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth' s surface, underneath the yin yang sun. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse and, like the moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.

The basic models that the Flat Earth puts forward are flawed, and fundamentally so. Their predictions do not match what is observed. And the explanation that everyone is in on the lie does not comply with Occam's Razor - that implies centuries, if not millennia of conspiracy, massive amounts of time, energy and money spent on deception and finely tuned international orchestration of infinitely detailed false science.
That doesn't sound very simple to me.

So, you have absolutely no clues from earth it is a spinning speeding ball.

I mentioned realists, free thinkers and genuine people  . Nothing other than that so calm yourself down.

And then linked to a video which those kinds of people would notice so many flaws with it isn't funny.

Just like always, you were lying.
What you really wanted was blinded delusional fools that would just accept this FE bullshit.

How about you respond to the points I made? Or do you want everyone to see that you are a close minded fool or a con-man?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It's been mentioned to him multiple times before.  Either he is doing it on purpose or he just doesn't can't read most of the replies to him.  i'm thinking it is a combination of both.  Even more hilarious is that he uses that and then corrected someone else's spelling/grammar in another thread.

I hope you don't might mind. FTFY.
The only reasonable explanation I have (what, with Occam's Razor and all that)
I don't believe that anybody could be so stupid as to be unable to understand any of what we post.

Math from a book, and star gazing is not evidence we live on a spinning speeding ball. Fact is, there is no evidence from earth's nature that supports we live on a spinning speeding ball. Your claim is baseless.

It isn't just math from a book.
It is math from a book based upon a spinning round Earth which matches reality, as well as math from a book based upon a stationary flat Earth which doesn't match reality.

This shows that the FE model doesn't match reality while the round Earth model does.

You have been provided evidence from Earth's physical nature that supports that we are living on a spinning ball.
All you did to counter it was blatantly lie about it, claiming Fiji (which you called Fuji) was in the northern hemisphere and that a picture near Japan was actually near NZ.

But hey, if you have a video/pic that shows water curving across its surface, let's see it. The sorry excuse, "we can't see it on earth", is not evidence for anything, just a sorry excuse for not having any evidence that supports a spinning speeding ball earth.

We have provided so many it isn't funny. You just dismiss them as fake or lie and say there is no curve.

Water at rest does not curve, it is always flat across its surface. I absolutely proved that in my Hudson Bay thread.

No. You didn't.
You absolutely disproved it by providing a video which shows a curved horizon.

Your arguments were also childish crap which we refuted. You are not seeing a great circle on the horizon.

Go make some physical observations!