The question no flat-earther can answer

When you can provide an explanation satisfactory to me for a northward shadow at a point ten degrees South of the Tropic of Capricorn, I'll consider the possibility that my senses deceive me at sunrise and sunset. I provided the photographs, but have never received any response.

Or that the north star has never been seen by those in the southern hemisphere

Fair enough, I suppose - except for one thing...

Even though I don't fully understand and cannot explain it (yet?), it does not remove the "mountain of evidence" that proves (to me) the Flat Earth Model. (Or, more particularly, disproves the Ball Earth Model.)

I am pretty sure I told you that there would be a long delay on that research - until my life situation is more "settled" and I get my computer set back up. (Soon, Lord willing.)

I have not forgotten about that 'quandry' - I assure you of that.

BTW @Dino246 - it has not been my intent to insult you or anyone else - I think you know that...

Are you saying that this is true or that [some] Flat Earthers say that this is true?

Best I remember at the moment (without looking it up) -- anywhere from 300 to 3000 miles above the earth, depending on who you ask.

I think the 'prevailing' answer is ~3000 miles above the earth.

I came up with an idea of my own for obtaining an accurate estimate for it. One of these days I hope to "do the math" (including the geometry) to conclude the matter.

If I decide it is worthwhile, I plan to post the results...

I'm saying it .. And I've never seen the Southern Cross, It is beyond the Horizon from my location

The Moon at 300 miles above earth would according to the Pythagorean theorem would put the Sun about 120,000 miles away from earth .. Could even that be possible according to flat earth ?

The sun and moon are approximately the same size and are at approximately the same distance/height above the earth.

To my knowledge - most if not all FEers are in agreement with this.

Sorry for the long wait, I stopped to show my 8 yr old grandson how to play mumbly peg and knife baseball flip ..
Any way You can travel South from the North pole to the Equator and reliably every time measure you latitude in degrees the at the equator the Nstar is at 0 degrees at the equator until it vanishes below the horizon .. It is not because the NS becomes too dim or far away because a star locater phone app can find it in any sky condition ..

We received a 55000 gal stainless tank with a built in site glass built in 2' too high .. While engineers were arguing I went and got a small 2' platform I had built and set it up under the site glass and said ''there, I lowered the site glass 2' for the short employee'' ... Same concept to me as earth spinning vs stars spinning same results ..

I think the shadows and angles can be measured and God made those natural laws dependable .. He can and does regularly intervene and override them supernaturally at His will or at our request ..

Solar vs Lunar eclipse doesn't near add up same size and difference

I am not sure that I am properly understanding what you are saying here. In both Ball and Flat models, the North Star is always seen in the "north" direction because it is directly above the 'North Pole'. In neither model would you see the North Star disappear over the horizon at the equator.

You're as good a flat earther as I've seen

Not if you quit traveling South and stayed still at the equator but if you continued South from the equator you wouldn't see the NS until you turned and headed back North or crossed the antarctic and headed North again on the back side

I will take that as a compliment - no matter how you really meant it...

This post should help you to better understand my statement quoted above:

https://christianchat.com/posts/3231999/

While it is important for/to me to understand the truth about your Australia scenario, by no means does it simply "do away with" any/all of the other evidence-to-consider...

The post you linked addresses tides. You provide no explanation in that post as to what you think causes tides; you just hack at the generally-accepted explanation with rhetorical questions and no observational evidence.

I have not done that. I am saying that the shadows in Australia are completely consistent with the ball-earth model while concurrently being completely impossible with the North-centric flat-earth model. Does that prove the ball-earth model? No. Does it disprove the N-c-f-e model? It certainly does.

What I think causes tides does not matter. I was not trying to prove FE or anything. I was questioning BE.

And, it was replete with observational evidence.

According to BE, absolutely nothing is affected by the [gravitational] "pull" of the moon except the [massive] oceans. (excepting what is mentioned below)

Why is that?

According to BE:

~ The Earth has 80+ times the mass of the moon

~ The moon, at a great distance, somehow overcomes the point-blank-range much-greater gravitational force of the Earth on the oceans while having no effect whatsoever on anything else on or above the Earth. (excepting the following)

~ The "pull" of the moon affects the water in our body/brain on Earth while astronauts hop around the moon surface with ease.

Such a force would pin the astronauts down to the surface of the moon and they would not be able to get up.

If the [gravitational] "pull" of the moon were "light" enough such that astronauts could do all the things on the surface of the moon that we are told they did --- how could it possibly have any effect on the massive oceans on Earth so far away?

Do you really believe all this BE crap???

You have avoided and ignored the issue.

And I am telling you that that is not necessarily the case.

How is it that the "pull" of the moon greatly affects the oceans while having only a "slight" effect on our 'delicate' bodily systems???