Experiment after experiment after experiment consistently demonstrate see too far.  Photographs of the Alps from 700 miles away that should have been hidden by 45 miles of curvature.  150-above-sea-level lighthouse seen from 250 miles away when it should be hidden by miles of curvature.  Many laser experiments, including one that destroys refraction, a two-way laser that completely debunks any possibility of refraction.  Come up with a plausible explanation for this phenomenon, and I'm all ears, but "refraction" is ridiculous, and simply not possible in the two-way experiment.

In fact, if someone were to assert that we live on a globe, but it's 10 times larger than what NASA claims, I'd examine the claims with an open mind and ask for the evidence to back it up.  That would explain "see too far", by indicating that our math is just wrong.

If someone were to hypothesize that the earth's electromagnetic field or the flow of ether bend light consistently around the curvature of the earth, I'd be all ears, ask for the evidence, and would look at it with an open mind.

In all cases, I'd insist upon seeing how they explain Sacred Scripture's and the Church Fathers' unanimous reading of a solid firmament that keeps natural water, H2O, off the earth.

But that deus ex machina of "refraction" is such a complete bunk, an act of desperation thrown out there when there's nothing else left.  As with every other issue I have examined, I always engage in the mental exercise of pretending I'm an advocate of the opposite position and how I would prove the opposite position.  I do this with evolution, Big Bang, as well as with theological issues.  This comes from my background in having engaged in competitive debate in High School and at University, where they force you to be for a position during one debate and against it during another one.  I found that to be a dishonest exercise in sophistry, but it did teach me to examine things objectively from both sides.  It's also very much in line with the Thomistic method, where you lay out the best arguments against your position and even briefly advocate for them before reaching your final conclusion.  It would be dishonest to make a very weak statement of the opposite position, so you put out the best case you can for the opposite and explain why you find it unconvincing.  In any case, unfortunately, most of the time, people simply have their conclusion determined ahead of time and then look for evidence to back it up, kindof like those debate teams, or how layers will defend people whom they know are guilty.

As with every other issue I have examined, I always engage in the mental exercise of pretending I'm an advocate of the opposite position and how I would prove the opposite position.  I do this with evolution, Big Bang, as well as with theological issues.  This comes from my background in having engaged in competitive debate in High School and at University, where they force you to be for a position during one debate and against it during another one.  I found that to be a dishonest exercise in sophistry, but it did teach me to examine things objectively from both sides.  It's also very much in line with the Thomistic method, where you lay out the best arguments against your position and even briefly advocate for them before reaching your final conclusion.  It would be dishonest to make a very weak statement of the opposite position, so you put out the best case you can for the opposite and explain why you find it unconvincing.  In any case, unfortunately, most of the time, people simply have their conclusion determined ahead of time and then look for evidence to back it up, kindof like those debate teams, or how layers will defend people whom they know are guilty.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'm sure there's some good intention on your end, but the execution is poor. Insufficient effort to prove the opposite position making very weak statements for it if any, frequent use of ad hominem, name calling, and strawmen that you frequently accuse others of. You seem to have your conclusion determined ahead of time, and just quit when nearly cornered, only to forget a while later and pick right back up where you left off minus the recent arguments against your position.

Some of this applies to me too, none of us are perfect, we really need to try better. Just don't pat yourself on the back.

The theory I saw was that the sun is approximately 3500 miles away (as well as the moon) and they are each about 36.8 miles in diameter. 

This guy does a great breakdown on the entire flat earth thing.  I just recently discovered his content and he seems to put all the most logical and scientific arguments and evidences for flat earth in one large blog.  There's a lot of reading and some of the links and pics he linked are missing but you can still learn A LOT, I know I did, and I'm still reading.  Credit to this website goes to Cera as she linked an article from there on (I think) another topic.

Part 19...https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/08/29/19-what-goes-around-comes-around/

...addresses your concern about the size and distance and goes through the maths.  I've read all the stuff from Part 1 through Part 22 and am now on Part 23.  If you just want the flat earth stuff start at Part 17.  I was about 75%/25% in favor of flat earth geocentrism but now I'm about 95%/5% in favor of flat earth geocentrism (vs globe earth geocentrism.)  He goes into a lot of the tougher explanations for flat earth such as Antarctic 24 hour sun, eclipses, how the sun reflects light off the dome and the shapes of the lights, how various flight patterns only work on FE, etc.

Thank you very much.  I appreciate.  Do you know if there a consensus of opinion among the FE community on this size and distance that he gives?

I was perusing the above link, and I am stumped by this conundrum.  I admit that I'm not very good with visual things, so perhaps a believer in heliocentric theory could explain this to me.  I'm not being facetious here, as from time to time I do find various fallacious evidence presented in favor of Flat Earth, and I'm honestly not sure whether this is one of those or if this presents a real problem for heliocentrism.  This isn't a Flat Earth consideration per se, since if the earth were stationary, even if a globe, what we currently observe is consistent with the sun moving around the earth every 24 hours.



I can't find a way to explain this within the confines of the heliocentric paradigm, so I'm stumped.  Notice how I do try to think through things objectively, and I'm not going to go into a victory lap against heliocentrism because I realize that I could be missing something, and I'm not a particularly visually-oriented individual, but I can't debunk this, and if this is valid, it completely obliterates heliocentrism.

I was perusing the above link, and I am stumped by this conundrum.  I admit that I'm not very good with visual things, so perhaps a believer in heliocentric theory could explain this to me.  I'm not being facetious here, as from time to time I do find various fallacious evidence presented in favor of Flat Earth, and I'm honestly not sure whether this is one of those or if this presents a real problem for heliocentrism.  This isn't a Flat Earth consideration per se, since if the earth were stationary, even if a globe, what we currently observe is consistent with the sun moving around the earth every 24 hours.



I can't find a way to explain this within the confines of the heliocentric paradigm, so I'm stumped.  Notice how I do try to think through things objectively, and I'm not going to go into a victory lap against heliocentrism because I realize that I could be missing something, and I'm not a particularly visually-oriented individual, but I can't debunk this, and if this is valid, it completely obliterates heliocentrism.

Heliocentrism has the Sun and Earth going more than one speed at the same time, which is impossible. They also say the Moon spins and goes the wrong way in the wrong time, which is all wrong. They pretend it all synchronizes in such a way to account for the experience of the calendar that prevails around the Earth. They also pretend space is infinite. There is no problem with their story that to them is nothing, it is nothing, not a problem.

I have not thought of a way to invalidate this claim yet.  In order for this to happen, there would have to be another force involved that would cause the earth to make one full additional rotation for each revolution around the sun, some kind of "lock" similar to what they claim happens to the moon, causing it to rotate ever so slightly more than once, i.e. 1/365th more than one full rotation in every 24 hours, and the odds of that happening with this kind of precision are pretty much exactly 0.  You'd have to have the earth rotating 1 and 1/365th every 24 hours.

This may be hand wavy since I'm going off memory from public school but I don't think the earth is claimed to rotate in a circle around the sun but rather an elliptical. Not sure if that changes the above but the diagram seemed off to me.

The earth's "orbit" being slightly elliptical wouldn't change the above issue one bit.

Sounds like grasping at straws to me. "Any explanation will do".

The old adage comes to mind,
"No man is so blind as he who will not see."