Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
As in no matter where you are?
Correct.
Wouldn't a flat earth have a round horizon in some places near the edge?
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
you always see the same uniform appearance?
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
Can you think of any 3D shape that will appear the same no matter what angle it's viewed from
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
What's this then?
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
You ruled science out the moment you ignored all of it's findings to adopt a theory that necessitates gravity not existing.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
If the earth is a disc then you should be able to go near the edge of the disk and go up high enough that you can see the edge, which would appear as a curve.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
It doesn't count
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
Every photograph that proves the earth is round is either fake cgi, or distortion that coincidentally conforms to scientific models of the earth
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Your map shows anartica or the "ice wall" as you put it to be like 500,000 miles long.... Like longer than every other continent's coastline put together.
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
I mean everywhere you look there are loose threads all over this theory that unravel at the slightest pull.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!
completely doable in your fantasy sci-fi disc world
Everything is possible in fantasy. But we are talking about reality! I obviously have no fantasy involving a sci-fi disc world, and also i have not encountered anyone who does.
but impossible on a spherical globe
What's impossible on a spherical globe?
If the world is flat, then everything we observe is obviously possible (and indeed, actual) on it.
How hard is that?
Surprisingly hard AND expensive - but you are missing the point. There is no reason to assume that antarctica (especially the northern coast you will be allowed to travel to) is anywhere near any edge - even if one exists. Again, the people who believe in an edge of the world are the globe proponents and believers, not the others.
A flat map is supposed to be an accurate scale model of the Earth according to YOU...
Really? Could you quote/link what comment i made which made you think that? Clearly you have misunderstood me, or i misspoke. I can clarify what i meant if you refer me back to my statement.
If you can't accurately represent the Earth on a flat map... then guess what... That means the earth isn't flat!!!
This is a misunderstanding, but as it happens - virtually all maps are flat and always have been. I guess by your logic that proves the world must be flat - because otherwise we couldn't depict it on flat paper (a truly cuckoo idea) like we have for thousands of years...
Name one..... One observation that's inconsistent with a round earth.
Let's start with yours, shall we? Your observations (photos) ostensibly show curvature which is wholly inconsistent with the globe model (the world would have to be far too small).
Models are always wrong, and always contradict observation/reality to some degree. It's goedel's proof by other words.
Granted. When speaking of the horizon, we are most often speaking of the visible horizon, which is very different than the actual/geographical horizon conceived in the globe model (aka the edge of the earth). What is most often missed is that this visible horizon is an optical illusion and not the physical edge of anything but our vision. That is one of the major reasons that it doesn't curve, and even if it did would not have bearing on the shape of the world.
Correct.
No, the visible horizon (which is the limit of your vision - a line surrounding you in 360 degrees) would be and is always flat.
Also, assuming the world flat - who says it would have an edge at all, let alone a curved one? The ones who believe in an edge are the globe proponents and believers - not the others.
It's because the horizon is an optical illusion. It's the same reason the horizon appears to rise up to your eye level in the distance. It has to do with angular resolution limits of the eye, which is the cause of perspective. It also varies with weather conditions in distance / clarity etc.
That "argument" doesn't apply to observations made of the earth. That is a common argument for observations of the moon and such things, but it is a big mistake to think that the uniformity we observe on earth has any dependency on sphericity. It's the opposite. The world is flat either because it actually is, or merely because it appears that way to us because of our relative scale.
That is a picture with distortion in it. Most likely that is caused by distortion from the air/and things dissolved/commingling in it. This can be confirmed by seeing the same shot from a slightly higher vantage point which shows clearly there is no curving occurring. But as I said, science is about rigorous measurement not merely looking! Often what we see, especially at great distance, is not what is. We often forget that we are looking through an awful lot of stuff, and even the laws of perspective/optics as a result of the design/limitations of the eye are not particularly intuitive.
I did no such thing! Science is about dissent, disagreement, and doubt my friend. "All of its findings" are not congruent and consensus is a curse word in science (also known by another term : bias). Truth is not a democracy, thank god.
It is precisely because of scientific findings, my adherence to the principles/philosophy of, as well as study and love of science that i have come to the conclusions i have.
Besides, you are misunderstanding my view. Gravity very much exists, and has formally for millennia. It is gravitation, invented a few centuries ago, which doesn't exist. I'm not subscribing/adopting any theory whatsoever - merely rejecting/discarding a theory (gravitation) misrepresented as a law which has never had any empirical support or reality. Newton didn't even bother to offer a hypothesis for it, because he understood it could never be empirical. He literally attributed its function/mechanism to the christian god.
Only if the earth is a disc, has an edge, and you are close enough to that edge (and it is illuminated well enough) for you to view it. That's a lot of ifs!
Very few i have encountered that think the world is flat think it is a disc (and none of those think it is a disc "floating in space"). Many think it doesn't have an edge, and most that do think it has an edge also speculate that that edge is not reachable (for varying reasons).
The point is, if the earth were a giant flat disc (with edges that were too far from us to be seen, or without edges at all and a plane not a disc) or a sphere too large for us to discern its sphericity due to our relative scale - our experience/observations would remain the same in both cases.
No, it doesn't apply. You seem to misunderstand that argument and its purpose. It isn't about our view of the world, which unquestionably presents itself experientially to us as (mostly) flat either because it is or because it is an illusion due to our relative scale. The pictures of the world that we take never show pieces of a (giant) basketball, and the horizon is always a flat line that surrounds us.
You misunderstand - i'm saying that it absolutely, unequivocally does not conform to scientific models of the earth. The curvature you show in both pictures would make the world far too small (that's one of MANY ways to determine that it is in fact due to distortion). If you don't believe me, do the calculations yourself!
Not my map! However AE maps are the preferred ones for military campaigns, by the by. Much like looking for the shape of the world in an optical illusion (the horizon), looking for it in a map is silly.
Wether antarctica is a giant ice wall surrounding the known world or a continent of the size and shape we are taught has no bearing on the shape of the world. The whole thing is a heavily advertised (i.e. funded) red herring; a product of the flat earth psyop.
There is no theory for the shape of the world, flat, spherical, or otherwise. Scientific theories are never for determining or describing the shapes of physical objects.
As for "loose threads", there is much to justifiably criticize about the views of those who think the world is flat, as well as those who think the world is spherical. But that will never establish the shape of the world - right? The globe model is inconsistent with many of our observations, as all models always are - but that doesn't prove it wrong (and the inverse, that just because some of our observations are consistent with it doesn't prove it right) right? The truth is that scientific models are always wrong. Models are built for specific limited purpose and they are made to be (limitedly) useful. Useful is not the same as correct!
Everything is possible in fantasy. But we are talking about reality! I obviously have no fantasy involving a sci-fi disc world, and also i have not encountered anyone who does.
What's impossible on a spherical globe?
If the world is flat, then everything we observe is obviously possible (and indeed, actual) on it.
Surprisingly hard AND expensive - but you are missing the point. There is no reason to assume that antarctica (especially the northern coast you will be allowed to travel to) is anywhere near any edge - even if one exists. Again, the people who believe in an edge of the world are the globe proponents and believers, not the others.
Really? Could you quote/link what comment i made which made you think that? Clearly you have misunderstood me, or i misspoke. I can clarify what i meant if you refer me back to my statement.
This is a misunderstanding, but as it happens - virtually all maps are flat and always have been. I guess by your logic that proves the world must be flat - because otherwise we couldn't depict it on flat paper (a truly cuckoo idea) like we have for thousands of years...
Let's start with yours, shall we? Your observations (photos) ostensibly show curvature which is wholly inconsistent with the globe model (the world would have to be far too small).
Models are always wrong, and always contradict observation/reality to some degree. It's goedel's proof by other words.