Speaking of my duties as a wife, I have other things to do than make the same points over and over again on this thread.  I have done my best to explain Church teaching.  If people are not going to accept it, that is not my responsibility.

Explaining Church teaching contrary to Church teaching is not explaining but perverting.  You have exactly zero proofs that earth is a globe.  You have zero proofs that the Church taught earth is a globe.  You have zero proofs that those who defend the literal interpretation of scripture as the Church Fathers specifically did on this subject are wrong.  On the other hand, we have provided you with a small portion of what the Church teaches on the subject only to be subjected to scorn, ridicule, disbelief, and odd interpretations of encyclicals that undermine what the Fathers actually teach because you are afraid of how that is going to affect you and your relationship with your husband and friends.  Who can accept that? 

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. 

There's no proof that, when the Fathers were expounding on Flat Earth, they were speaking of something that was revealed though the Apostles rather than "expressing ideas of their own times".  Is there anything in the Church Fathers that indicates that the position was taught by the Apostles or taught by the Church vs. their own personal opinion?  That's what is usually necessary in order to establish a Patristic dogmatic consensus and not a mere unanimity of thought.

If you think that is preposterous, try this: Heliocentrism is the foundation of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

You continue to conflate Heliocentrism with Globe Earth; they are NOT the same thing.

I don't really know enough about how these instruments work.  As for keeping planes level, as long as the gyros kept the plane level vis-a-vis the surface, only a very subtle correction of angle (or extremely slight downward dip of the nose) would be needed from time to time to keep the plane at the same altitude.  That one I don't see as a big deal.  I don't understand why a sundial, sextant, or astrolabe would not work on a globe earth.  I do find the Hungarian laser experiment intriguing.  I'll keep studying as I have time.

Astrolabes and sextants work with lines and angles and line of sight.  How can you measure anything when your target is many feet below your line of sight?
IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circuмference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:
Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every
p. 10
mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles. 1 The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles.

No worries, your interest is refreshing.

Ladislaus,
What precisely is more convincing for you on the debunking flat earth side?

Not being nasty here, but how is it more convincing than the lack of curvature?

I am not yet convinced about lack of curvature.  I have a real problem with the long days near the Southern Pole at certain times of the year, including 24-hour days at the Pole.  I don't see how Flat Earth can account for that given how the sun would have to move across it.

You needn't thank me.  I owe it to myself and to the interests of truth to remain open.  I'd be lying if I would stand here and pontificate with certainty that the earth is a globe.

It's just that that's rare.

That is interesting. Whenever we think of the explorers of the past, they usually travel horizontally. What we consider to be from west to east, or east to west.

To this day, no airplane will take you to the other side of the earth by going over the "North Pole" or "South Pole".  All travel tends to be east to west.  There are no flights around the "globe" that travel over either "pole".

I am not yet convinced about lack of curvature.  I have a real problem with the long days near the Southern Pole at certain times of the year, including 24-hour days at the Pole.  I don't see how Flat Earth can account for that given how the sun would have to move across it.

Ok, but the explanation for how the sun works on a flat earth and whether the earth actually has curvature are very different things.

Did you get time to catch the video I posted about there being no 24 hour sun in Antartica?