Except for the snarkiness, I liked this. A good attempt at finding true scientific evidence for ball-Earth. Unfortunately, as Dino outlines, the author didn't take similar compass readings of the sunrise and sunset, so I am cautious about taking all he claims as truth, but overall, a reasonable and convincing argument.
Thanks, Mo. We know it usually comes down to confirmation bias. Like, even if he had shown location and sun rise/set with navigational proofs, shown the shadows with a compass, some folks would just say they can't trust the visuals and/or the person.
Individuals have to look inside and figure: if their understanding of the physical world has stopped at some point for some reason, or if they're continuing to be open to new reasonable information? Science evolves as does our personal understanding. Science has historical experimental/observational foundations that it has built, and individuals do too.
We assume the historical layers of science are correct because we only have one lifetime, and we have other priorities. Because human products work or are discarded, we have solid reason to trust those historical layers.
When there's a bunch of different models that explain a bunch of different things, but these models don't fit together or even contradict, it's not reasonable to believe them over a single model that explains, correctly predicts, has functioning tools for the physical world and has done so for centuries. These two different "models" are not on equal footing.
Case in point: I can assume the first time we read Joshua 10 and "stop the sun", we didn't run into the halls declaring to everyone our new faith in the flat earth. Why not? Because it follows the Judeo-Christian concept of Miracle, like all the other miracles. Only after being exposed to FE info did anyone come back to Joshua10, and then used it as confirmation bias. FE is something one possesses. Joshua10 only becomes relevant as a shield to keep it.
Why am I mentioning this? Because of the elephant in the room. Folks who've engaged in the FE convo knows there's a "tail chasing" element. 99% isn't good enough. 1% can still win. I'll get back this.
Now remember, Heliocentrism also has it's problems with the motion of the Heavenly bodies, and its excuses include a wobble of the Earth and refraction for almost everything else. Flat Earthers could simply provide the same excuses as to being unable to explain the reason for this phenomena, but I don't find making excuses to be scientific. The honest answer is I don't know and can't yet explain it, but this is also the reason I shy away from using the motion of Heavenly bodies to try and prove the non-existence of curvature we should be able to measure down here on Earth. If the Earth is truly a ball, contrary to our observations, we should be able to measure it.
Maybe you know more about helio vs egocentric astrological observations than I do. Yes, with a lot of this stuff, refraction, light bending is always an issue, so we can leave that aside. I think one should take a bit of time to look at the issue as a whole. A very good way to do that is a
presentation and matching reply-rebuttal video made by a PhD in the fields who's done experiments and calculations, someone not a layman and who is also a teacher.
If you're willing, pray and then checkout these two
aforementioned videos. Afterward, ask yourself where you should now be on this issue. If you're not there, write down, for yourself, what is the specific reason you're not?
There are specific effortful hands-on experiments you can do as a proof of SE, but that's secondary. You have to first be in mental state that would actually value it.
The Earth is Definitely Not Flat - YouTube
Response to Globebusters - The Earth Still Isn't Flat - YouTube