There are dozens of observations that debunk flat earth. For example, calculate the heading of the sunrise on the first day of spring using a flat earth and the allegedly close sun. In reality the heading is due east
... for everyone. Explain how the sunrise lights the top of a mountain first. Globe earth explains it.
If that's case closed for you, then so be it, however, the issue is much much larger. I'll attempt to explain.
This argument of the Sun rise attempts to ignore our ability to directly measure the earth. And instead of measuring the shape of the earth directly, you'd like to assume that because of the nature of the lights in the sky, of which there is no way to verify their precise distance or properties, you have created a model which you believe better explains your observations.
Model making is not science - you are introducing far too many variables into your argument. Shape of the earth does not need to be so complicated - by introducing variables such as the distance and size of the Sun, by measuring shadows instead of the earth directly, and by assuming qualities about the Sun, this whole argument does not pose any serious of threat of success in "proving" the earth is round, or "debunking" flat earth.
There is plenty of direct, natural science which indicates the earth is flat and motionless. Direct measurements as well as properly designed and executed scientific experiments.
So if you want to claim that anything about the path of the Sun proves the shape or size of the earth, go ahead - but that's not science. And it's not proof - at best, it would be "some evidence" - but if you study the epistemology and logic of all of this you'll soon realize you've been fooled.
There are dozens of observations that debunk flat earth. For example, calculate the heading of the sunrise on the first day of spring using a flat earth and the allegedly close sun. In reality the heading is due east ... for everyone. Explain how the sunrise lights the top of a mountain first. Globe earth explains it.
If that's case closed for you, then so be it, however, the issue is much much larger. I'll attempt to explain.
This argument of the Sun rise attempts to ignore our ability to directly measure the earth. And instead of measuring the shape of the earth directly, you'd like to assume that because of the nature of the lights in the sky, of which there is no way to verify their precise distance or properties, you have created a model which you believe better explains your observations.
Model making is not science - you are introducing far too many variables into your argument. Shape of the earth does not need to be so complicated - by introducing variables such as the distance and size of the Sun, by measuring shadows instead of the earth directly, and by assuming qualities about the Sun, this whole argument does not pose any serious of threat of success in "proving" the earth is round, or "debunking" flat earth.
There is plenty of direct, natural science which indicates the earth is flat and motionless. Direct measurements as well as properly designed and executed scientific experiments.
So if you want to claim that anything about the path of the Sun proves the shape or size of the earth, go ahead - but that's not science. And it's not proof - at best, it would be "some evidence" - but if you study the epistemology and logic of all of this you'll soon realize you've been fooled.