If the Earth were flat---

A tree casts a shadow. The earth, as a singular object, does not cast a shadow upon anything.

That is a matter of opinion and perspective.

They didn't prove the earth was a ball. They assumed the earth was a ball and developed the math to explain it.

Math works for the FE model, too.

Welcome to CC!

Given your location, you can assist us in this discussion, if you’re willing. Just find a pole or tree that is isolated enough that a shadow from it in any direction would be visible on the ground. Then, snap photos from the same point showing the object and its shadow (from the sun) at or near sunrise, noon, and sunset, between now and the end of January. Then post the pics, and let the flat-Earth proponents stumble over themselves explaining why what the pics show is impossible. 😁

If the Earth conforms to the North-centric disc model, this shadow will only fall (generally) to the South. If the ball model is accurate, the sunrise and sunset pics will fall partly to the North while the noon pic will fall to the South.

THOSE HUMAN AUTHORS WERE INSPIRTED BY GOD.
Don't call God's inspired servants stupid!

Lol, you talk about Greeks as if they were some kind of gods or something.

Point of order: He didn't say the Bible authors were stupid. He called you stupid. Or rather, he called what you said stupid.

Language of appearance?
What is that?
Is it scriptual?

Sorry, I know it doesn't help your feelings at all. But it IS an important distinction to make. He didn't call the Bible authors stupid at all.

You might as well get upset at the right offense if you're going to get upset. Getting upset about something you only THOUGHT somebody said is just a waste of high blood pressure.

First it was an orange, then a pear, now an egg.

Riiiiigghhtt...

"all directions" ?

Riiiiigghhtt...

I seriously doubt you flew due south without veering from that course until you were flying north.

"Because of the orientation and tilt of their orbits, the eight major planets of the Solar System can never come into perfect alignment. The last time they appeared even in the same part of the sky was over 1,000 years ago, in the year AD 949, and they won’t manage it again until 6 May 2492. "
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/do-the-planets-ever-align-with-one-another/

What? No pictures?? Where are the pictures???

- because the camera is tilted.

You don't even know what you are saying.

In the BE model - wherever you are - you are at the 'top of the globe'. The 'curvature' slopes away from you in all directions. There is no way in the world you are ever going to see a slanted/tilted horizon.

- looking through windows that caused that 'warping' effect.

No - forget pictures.

Each "session" should be a video, whereby:

1) Each video begins by "proving" a good properly working compass, without ever loosing site of the compass for even a moment for the entire unedited unmodified video session segment.

2) Place the compass where it can be clearly seen precisely what direction is due north on the compass. Align it with something on the ground (or, at shadow level) that is straight-as-an-arrow and as long as possible. (And, needless to say, in view at all times for the remainder of the video.)

3) Measure shadow angle with some form of large accurate protractor with reference to the "north" line - showing the measurement very clearly in the video.

4) Make sure the video is continuously marked with the proper accurate year, month, date, and time of day - counting in real time - for the entire duration of the unedited unmodified video.

5) Make sure the video is done in a serious professional manner such that no "slight of hand" can take place at any time during the video and be "missed" because of the joviality of the video production - or any such similar thing.

You get the idea...

All of this is unnecessary. If he does it exactly as I described, it will be adequate proof that the North-centric model is bogus. A compass is not needed, because the shadow cast will tell the story.

Of course, those who are not convinced by simple physics will not be convinced by carefully shot video either.

It is necessary.

How is anyone going to know where the critical reference of [due/true] 'north' is?

If you want to convince me - without my actually being there to witness it - you're going to do it in a way that is as-nearly-as-possible convincing as if I were there witnessing it myself.

You're willy-nilly suggestion of "just take my word for it" is simply not good enough.

Even "simple physics" - if it is good science - requires making/taking good accurate measurements and proper data recording.

In reality, those to whom you are trying to prove something decide what is "adequate proof" (for them).

If I am going to try to prove something to you - who decides what is "adequate proof" - you or me?

Be honest!

If I say the earth is flat and that what I am going to show you will be "adequate proof" - is that sufficient for you? Or, will you tell me "No, I will decide what will convince me." and expect me to accept that you have to be "convinced" on your terms?

I know you are smart enough to give the right answer here - the only question is - will you...???

If you think that I (or anyone else) is "asking too much" for proof - that is another issue altogether.

However, myself-and-others are not so weak-minded that we will accept your "just take my word for it" attitude and proposal without question.

What does this have to do with anything? (in this thread, or related to what I said that you quoted)

And, here lies the problem...

If you are going to think about - and talk about - the Flat Earth model, you must do so from within the Flat Earth model framework.

You cannot successfully do so from the Ball Earth model framework.

In other words, you cannot make sense of FE from a BE POV. You must look at it from a FE POV.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. One thing is for sure, they were a sight smarter than a lot of college educated kids today. The fact that you get to vote is courtesy of the Greeks. Quite a bit of the English language is based on Greek words. If you knew any history, you would know that they were a highly advanced civilisation. They were also corrupt in many ways, brutal, and slavery was the norm. They were smarter than the Englishman whose flawed experiment led him to the wrong conclusion.

How about doing from the aspect of TRUTH! Or is that too much for you to handle?

So the sun and moon do not exist? What do you mean, singular object? You don't answer questions, you state riddles.

The globe earth theory has one major advantage. It's been seen. Photographed. By real people. If I had the money, I would hire a jet and fly you flat earthers around the globe. Maybe Kenneth Copeland would lend me his. I don't suppose it would change your mind, but at least I would have tried.

The Greeks surmised from observations that the earth was curved. Eratosthenes of Cyrene worked out the math. His calculations are remarkably accurate.

Y'all tired of yelling at each other yet?

No, huh? Oh well. I'll go get some more popcorn.