And to be clear, my distance to said bodies - and my beliefs - differ from Tom's. This is Tom's challenge. If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.
Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.
To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:
Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.
If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.
On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.
We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.
After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.
Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.