How can you have such sunsets and sunrises?

@fiveredpears says: The flat Earth model can be refuted using a couple of simple observations that are easily checked.

First observation: the sun is exactly the same apparent size in the sky everywhere in the world and at all times of day. Wherever you are, as the sun crosses the sky from horizon to horizon it stays the same size.

Second observation: The angle of incoming sunlight changes very slowly as you move across the Earth. If you are at a place where the sun is directly overhead then the angle of incidence of the sunlight is 0°; angle of incidence is measured against the vertical. At a point on the Earth 500 miles away the angle of incidence will be 7°. Between those two points on the Earth the angle of incidence will have changed gradually.

If the Earth is flat then the sun would have to be about 4000 miles directly above the point on the Earth where the angle of incidence of sunlight is 0° to account for the change in angle of incidence of 7° over 500 miles. This is calculated using high school trigonometry. However, if the sun appears to be exactly the same size over the course of a day that means its distance from the observer can’t be changing significantly. So if the sun was 4000 miles overhead in the middle of the day it would have to be 4000 miles directly across land at sunset. Apart from the fact that this is absurd the sun would also only stay the same apparent size in exactly one place on the Earth. Everywhere else its size would change hugely, in fact it would be landing on the ground in a couple of locations.

Suppose the sun was 4000 miles directly above a point on a flat Earth and followed a circular path centred at the North pole; its size in the sky would change significantly over the course of a day. Assuming that the Earth is a flat disc with a diameter of 25 000 miles, the sun would move in a circle with a radius of about 6000 miles or so. If the sun happened to be directly overhead, then 12 hours later it would be 4 000 miles directly above a point on the Earth 12 000 miles away. The sun would be about 3 times further away than it was when it was directly overhead which means it would appear to be 3 times smaller in the sky. The sun would also follow a completely different path in the sky, instead of following an arc from horizon to horizon it would appear to move in a huge circle. Its angle of elevation would also never be less than about 18° which means it could never be observed going below the horizon across water.

The only feasible explanation for the sun being the same size everywhere on Earth is that the sun is very big and is a long way away. However, if the sun is a long way away then all the light from it must be parallel. The angle of incidence of sunlight would be exactly the same all over a flat Earth at any given moment; it would be the same time of day everywhere.

There is only one model that fits the observed gradual change in the angle of incidence of sunlight and the unchanging size of the sun; that is a round Earth with a large sun a long way away.

@fiveredpears says: If you want more arguments consider the following.

Qantas do a direct flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile. It takes 12 hours 40 minutes in a Boeing 747.

Sydney and Santiago are both at a latitude of roughly 33° South. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 12 450 miles. On a flat Earth this means that the circle centred at the North pole which passes through Santiago and Sydney has a radius of 8 500 miles and a circumference of 53 500 miles.

Sydney is at a longitude of roughly 150° East and Santiago is at 70° West. Assuming a flat Earth; travelling East from Sydney along the circle centred at the North pole, the distance to Santiago is 20 800 miles. The direct distance on a flat Earth between Sydney and Santiago would be 16 000 miles. I can show how I made these calculations if anyone is interested.

If you fly from Sydney to Santiago along the circle the average speed is 1 640 miles per hour.

Flying direct the average speed is 1 260 miles per hour.

So, a plane flying from Sydney to Santiago on a flat Earth would have to fly at somewhere between 1 260 and 1 640 miles per hour. A Boeing 747 flies at a maximum of about 600 miles per hour.

On the other hand, the distance between Sydney and Santiago on a round Earth model is 7060 miles. This gives you an average speed of 560 miles per hour which is what we would expect.

Unless the distance between the North pole and the South pole is, at most, about a half of what we are told it is, this just doesn't work. Is it really feasible that the distance between the North Pole and the South pole is only about 6 000 miles?

Another possibility is that Boeing 747s can fly at the twice the speed we are told but only do this in the Southern hemisphere.

The only other possibility is that the latitudes and longitudes for locations on Earth have to be totally wrong.

The problem with all three of these possibilities is that they would be noticed by thousands of people in their daily professional lives. The round Earth model is used by pilots, navigators, sailors, the military, air traffic controllers, meteorologist etc. If it was drastically wrong, which it would be if the Earth was flat, then the world would grind to a halt.

If airplanes were flying about at twice the speed we are told then thousands of pilots and aeronautic engineers would have to know and be keeping quiet about it.

It's just not feasible in any way that the Earth is flat. It's a preposterous idea.

@fivereadpears says:Reasons for believing the Earth is round:

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.

3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.

4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.

5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.

6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.

7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator was a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles.

8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.

@fiveredpears says: 1. You obviously do not understand the argument. The constant angular size of the sun and its constant angular speed in the sky imply, overwhelmingly, that the sun is a distant object. If the sun is a long way away, then on a flat Earth it would be at the same position in the sky everywhere. That's the point. The sun's angle of elevation changes gradually as you move across the Earth. If the sun is a long way away this could only happen if the Earth is round.


2. What are you talking about? If you are at the North pole there is a point directly overhead around which stars are turning anticlockwise. As you move south the position of the point about which they are turning drops to a lower point in the sky. By the time you get to the equator this point is on the horizon and due North at any point on the equator. If you look south you can see a different set of stars and different constellations rotating about a point on the horizon. As you move South this point moves up in the sky, at the south pole it is directly overhead. There is no flat Earth model which can account for these observations. If the Earth was flat and there was a plane of stars rotating above it, there would only be one centre of rotation and it wouldn't drop to the horizon at the equator. It would be visible all over the Earth.


3. Here are some online articles referring to the 24 hour sun in Antarctica.

www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/earth/antarctica/antarctic-conservation/blog-archive/?p=174

www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/weather/sunlight-hours

www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/SunRun.html

www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/jan/09/eternal-sunshine-confused-minds-antarctica

Up until a few years ago up to 40 000 tourists were visiting Antarctica a year. To preserve Antarctica and protect it from the environmental impact of human visitors restrictions were placed on visiting. It's not a conspiracy.


4. If the sun was moving about above a flat Earth it could never be observed to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees i.e. set. It's impossible. If you were at a location where the sun was 3000 miles directly overhead on a flat Earth, for the sun to drop to an angle of elevation of just 5 degrees it would have to have moved so it was directly above a point on the Earth 34 300 miles away. Since that's over 10 times further away we would expect it to look 10 times smaller. There are no two locations on Earth more than 12 450 miles apart.


5. I have lived near a beach all my life and have been watching ships disappear over the horizon all my life. Show me the picture taken at sea level 60 miles from the Statue of Liberty which shows all of it.


6. So you avoid the whole bridge problem and bring up airplanes. This idea that planes would have to fly nose down all the time on a round Earth is like something a child would think. When a plane is flying it is constantly adjusting due to vibrations and turbulence. The amount that the Earth curves is small, smaller than the little adjustments a plane would have to be making all the time. A plane is constantly adjusting itself to the horizontal, the horizontal changes very gradually as it's flying. I mean really, do actually need that explained to you?


7 and 8. So what you are suggesting is that all the facts we know about the Earth are wrong. That all the people who use the round Earth model on a daily basis don't notice that none of the facts add up: pilots, navigators, sailors, air traffic controllers, meteorologists, cartographers. If the circumference of the equator is 24 900 miles on a flat Earth then the distance from the North Pole to the equator is 4000 miles. If all the distances between locations on Earth were drastically different from what they are on the model people are working with then the world would come to standstill. How can you honestly believe that is feasible?


So, you have used the familiar tactic. Deny inconvenient facts as being part of a conspiracy. It's absurd. It's a preposterous idea. The flat earth model is catastrophically wrong. Distances would be totally different, especially in the Southern hemisphere. The sun would never drop below the horizon. The sun wouldn't be visible 24 hours a day in Antarctica. It's a fucking joke. I hope you are trolling, for your sake and the sake of the future of the human race.