The question no flat-earther can answer

"Forget about curvature arguments. The fact that you can only see 2.5 per cent at a time proves it isn’t flat. If it was flat you should be able to see the whole thing from even just the top of the tallest mountain or on any commercial flat." Pic taken top of Mount Everest

Oh, come on Dino - I know you are smarter than that...

In the name of 'discussion' - and not 'debate' - let me suggest that it is we who draw conclusions from the records of the explorers.

Yes - "perhaps"...

Conclusions drawn from the records of the explorers aren't evidence either; they are conjecture, speculation, and at best, educated guesses.

I respect your desire to discuss rather than debate. However, you have made and are defending a proposition. That makes it a debate by default. It need not be adversarial or acrimonious to qualify.

Yeah, I'll have to go with Dino on that one... defending a proposition is pretty much a debate.

And if I was debating, I would have to ignore any claims about records of explorers if you didn't produce the records.

Here's why: people often cite a source for something, and if you actually go look closely at the source, it will actually say something else. So if people quote a source, they need to show it. That's just being fair I think.

I'll go you one better.
Sometimes I've read that a certain source backs up MY argument, but I never looked at the original source myself.
When I finally look at it... I find out I was lied to.

I'm not saying the records are false, I'm just saying it's fair to ask for them.
And I were debating this, I'd expect to see those records.


On the other hand....
if i were debating this, on Dino's side, I wouldn't even go the direction of those records.
I think that's just a rabbit trail.... and it could all end up being irrelevant.
..
.

Nothing ever makes a discussion a debate by default. That is an absurd notion. People can have any manner of a discussion without it being a debate.

I disagree.

If it's a discussion we don't even care about, then it doesn't matter.

But if we actually want to be believed...
we should be willing to back up what we say.

We shouldn't expect people to BELIEVE us without giving them some evidence for that belief.

That seems reasonable.

So the antithesis would be,
if we aren't willing to provide some evidence, we shouldn't expect to be believed.

GUYS GUYS GUYS...

I understand what you are saying. I really actually do.

Let me be blunt...

IN THIS THREAD:

I am only concerned with explaining certain aspects of the flat-earth model as posed by the OP with the title statement about a question that is not even a good/valid question.

I am only interested in correcting the misunderstanding of the aspects of the flat-earth model with regard to the context of the thread.

I don't want to derail the thread or get drawn into a "squabble" debate over things that may be found in sufficient abundance in several places.

My only [original] intent is to 'explain' - not 'prove' or 'defend'.

You're not trying to prove or defend?

So....
you are NOT trying to prove the earth is flat?
.

..

Fools!! Don't you know that the earth is being held up by a giant Tortoise?

well reported - Can you give me documented nonbiased clear reports?

Christchurch, New Zealand - at 43.5 degrees latitude south

Average July (winter) temperatures - high - 51 F low - 40 F
Average Feb. (summer) temperatures - high - 69 F low - 55 F

Sapporo, Japan - at 43 degrees latitude north

Average Feb. (winter) temperatures - high - 33 F low - 22 F
Average July (summer) temperatures - high - 76 F low - 63 F


Comparable cities north and south of the equator - Christchurch has warmer winters but cooler summers

You said "The North is always much warmer than the south" -- it is not so in this case!?

Welcome back Gary. You have been missed. This is not debatable.

Did you ever watch a sunrise or sunset yet?
Like I asked you to do years ago?

Arclength s = radius*angle

For a longer radius, the sun would have to travel faster to subtend the same 15° angle.

You flat lot say, the sunlight doesn't travel everywhere, because that's what you have to say to explain why there is such a thing as night.
Therefore, 'daylight' is restricted to a patch on the surface of the Earth of a fixed area under the travelling sun. Therefore, the amount of daylight a fixed position on the earth receives is calculated by how long the sun takes to move from the position in which the leading edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed earth position, to the position in which the sun moves when the trailing edge of the 'daylight patch' crosses the fixed position on earth.

Therefore the amount of daylight a point on earth gets is definitely dependent on the speed of the suns movement ((in the flat model))

Therefore Gary still doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Must be one of those Ninja Turtles.

So I took debating in High School for nothing? Well at least I got 5 units.

I thought it was being held up by a camel?🤔😁.

Yeah we've known for 2000 years that the Earth isn't flat
Talk about willful ignorance

This post made me realize that I did not word my statement correctly. My apologies to all. At the time I made the statement (post #27), I was thinking about the extremes and not the middle (evidenced by post #29) - not from 0-90 degrees N&S - rather, from something more like 60-90 degrees N&S. It is the far-north vs far-south that I intended to illustrate.

Look into it -- you may find it very interesting...