Good of you to at least give it the old college physics professor try.
Allow me to simplify:
North star alignment
Lack of Curvature
Orbit Velocity
Looking past the attempted character attack in the initial portion of your musings, we are still having a clear misunderstanding of what the requirements are.
I have reduced your large amount of opinionated concepts to a few short words that are more than enough to proclaim the position of believe you stand on.
I will briefly allow you to expand on this list if you wish prior to embarking on an explanation.
I can give you a prelude and it is that is simply for each of these mere points you are speaking from subjective standpoints that are not capable of providing strong evidence to the claim at hand. In other words, a person can approach each of these with the frame of mind we have and come out with questions because we are not currently capable of providing concise answers to the problems without leaning on conjecture or modified data.
You know as well as I do that these points are specified in this way for this purpose. So that there can be oblique claims of feigned ignorance around the meaty bits that result in foggy interpretations being the only available outcome.
I have never proclaimed to have definitive proof we live on a globe, I am still looking for valid evidence in either regard, fyi.
(1) earths orbital path would mean that no single star would be able to maintain the same position above a point on our insignificant rock
Unsupported claim that sounds incorrect.
(3) we would feel changes in velocity,
Actually false.
(2) by the time you get to 10 miles, that will be an 800 inch drop. that is a 6 story building of height.
This is your one potentially valid claim. I have a 20 mile expanse over water to check one of these days. On the off chance I see the beach over there, I promise to come back and berate you for making arguments so lame that it's like you're trying to drive people away from flat earth.
20 miles - 0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
Hotels and such on the beach should not be visible...
The thing is, that's exactly what I'd expect to see from a spinning planet. Our gyroscopes are usually small enough to physically overpower, but they 'want' to maintain their spin and orientation as the earth actually does. (according to ballers)
Extent the line through both poles and it should maintain that orientation for a pretty long time. Unlike a gyroscope you could move about in a room and have point to different parts of your ceiling, the distances involved are significant enough to negate the orbit around the sun.
Rotating perfectly and rotating in a spiral perfectly, so that the north star stays above a random point on our random planet? That's stupid.
Correct. What's not stupid is the extended line through the poles keeping the same orientation.
Good of you to at least give it the old college physics professor try.
Allow me to simplify:
Looking past the attempted character attack in the initial portion of your musings, we are still having a clear misunderstanding of what the requirements are.
I have reduced your large amount of opinionated concepts to a few short words that are more than enough to proclaim the position of believe you stand on.
I will briefly allow you to expand on this list if you wish prior to embarking on an explanation.
I can give you a prelude and it is that is simply for each of these mere points you are speaking from subjective standpoints that are not capable of providing strong evidence to the claim at hand. In other words, a person can approach each of these with the frame of mind we have and come out with questions because we are not currently capable of providing concise answers to the problems without leaning on conjecture or modified data.
You know as well as I do that these points are specified in this way for this purpose. So that there can be oblique claims of feigned ignorance around the meaty bits that result in foggy interpretations being the only available outcome.
I have never proclaimed to have definitive proof we live on a globe, I am still looking for valid evidence in either regard, fyi.
Unsupported claim that sounds incorrect.
Actually false.
This is your one potentially valid claim. I have a 20 mile expanse over water to check one of these days. On the off chance I see the beach over there, I promise to come back and berate you for making arguments so lame that it's like you're trying to drive people away from flat earth.
20 miles - 0.05052 miles = 266.75 feet
Hotels and such on the beach should not be visible...
The thing is, that's exactly what I'd expect to see from a spinning planet. Our gyroscopes are usually small enough to physically overpower, but they 'want' to maintain their spin and orientation as the earth actually does. (according to ballers)
Extent the line through both poles and it should maintain that orientation for a pretty long time. Unlike a gyroscope you could move about in a room and have point to different parts of your ceiling, the distances involved are significant enough to negate the orbit around the sun.
Correct. What's not stupid is the extended line through the poles keeping the same orientation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihwoIlxHI3Q&list=PLHSoxioQtwZf1-8QeggXIVdZ-abyJXaO1 - The Earth Disaster Documentary
I watched all 80 minutes of that last video you linked. Here's something for you to roll your eyes at. Or to pick apart if you wish.