Was watching the video from the other thread and when I saw this I immediately thought of your post regarding the 'pear' earth.



This potential shape of the earth is very interesting compared to the current flat earth model that is generally used.

 
Another image. Wow this is just wow. A pear, a pear. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, also apparently another continent.

For those interested in the history of the subject.


'As a matter of fact, Augustine’s views have sometimes been assimilated to those of his predecessor Lactantius (c. 250–c. 325), who famously ridiculed the idea that the earth could be spherical, because people in the southern hemisphere would have to have their feet above their hands and trees would grow downwards.'(Divine Institutes 3.24)


https://www.academia.edu/1037932/Augustine_and_the_Shape_of_the_Earth_A_Critique_of_Leo_Ferrari?email_work_card=view-paper

St Hildegard’s Universe with Jerusalem at the Centre of the Earth’s landmass

‘In Hildegard’s universe, the Earth is the centre, and spherical, around which were arranged concentric shells or zones. The inner zones are spherical, the outer oval or egg-shaped, and the outermost so formed as to suggest the acuмinated sphere that symbolises the fifth element, quintessence of the other four. This point that tapers into outer space is in the East, which is the top of the diagram. One of her drawings, says Singer, shows that she believed the antipodeans surface of the Earth to be uninhabitable, “since it is either beneath the ocean, or in the mouth of the Dragon.” In the interior of the Earth, she believed, are two vast spaces shaped like truncated cones, where punishment was endured, and from whence great evil came forth.’

You keep citing this, but it actually goes against the NASA globe earth model.  I've pointed this out before, but you persist anyway.  She believed that the entire bottom part of the sphere is uninhabitable, since below you have the Great Deep and Sheol.  I took the liberty of bolding the section you keep ignoring.  It says this right here in the text you cite, but you seem to filter it out through confirmation bias.  When various authors write of a spherical world, they're often including the firmament as part of the shape.  So St. Hildegard's description looks more like this picture below than NASA's globe/ball.  Those who believed that the world was shaped like a globe would have the firmament (as shown in the picture below) go completely around the entire spherical system.

The flat earth theory posits that the sun moves in a way that violates just about every law of physics we know of.

1. It floats in the air contrary to the observable phenomenon that everything naturally falls towards the earth.
2. It moves without propulsion. Impossible.
3. It moves in a circle. This would require an additional form of propulsion or force to overcome the centrifugal force of an object moving in a circle. By themselves, moving objects move in a straight line.
4. It moves in a spiral according to the yearly cycle of the seasons. Thus, it begins towards the center of the flat earth at the summer solstice, and as it rotates it is pushed by an unknown force towards Antarctica, mysteriously reversing its path back towards the north pole at the winter solstice. What causes this attraction towards Antarctica, and then pushes it back to the north again?

I could go on. Also, people have been observing ships disappear hull-first in the distance since literally the first ship that ever sailed (Noe's Ark?). The assertion that lower part of the ship becomes visible through a telescope or telephoto lens is absurd because an optical lens does not enable the viewer to see an object that was previously obstructed from view by another object. Lenses don't work that way; they don't change the nature of what someone is looking at, all they do is increase the size of what is already visible to the viewer. And the hull of the ship is obstructed by the surface of the water. No lens could enable a person to see through that obstruction.

The same is true of the sun when it sets over a body of water. The lower half of the sun disappears, from the bottom up, behind the surface of the water. If the earth were flat, it would be impossible for part of the sun to be obstructed by a body of water and the rest of it to be visible.

2. It moves without propulsion. Impossible.

Ridiculous.  Even with modern physics, there's no "propulsion" involved with the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Many of the Church Fathers felt that the firmament moved and carried the sun, moon, and starts within it.

Do light or electromagnetic waves have "propulsion"?  What "propulsion" is moving the earth around the sun, and the sun through the galaxy, in your view of things?

4. It moves in a spiral according to the yearly cycle of the seasons. Thus, it begins towards the center of the flat earth at the summer solstice, and as it rotates it is pushed by an unknown force towards Antarctica, mysteriously reversing its path back towards the north pole at the winter solstice. What causes this attraction towards Antarctica, and then pushes it back to the north again?

Magnetic fields?  Could be anything really.

Also, people have been observing ships disappear hull-first in the distance since literally the first ship that ever sailed (Noe's Ark?). The assertion that lower part of the ship becomes visible through a telescope or telephoto lens is absurd because an optical lens does not enable the viewer to see an object that was previously obstructed from view by another object. Lenses don't work that way; they don't change the nature of what someone is looking at, all they do is increase the size of what is already visible to the viewer. And the hull of the ship is obstructed by the surface of the water. No lens could enable a person to see through that obstruction.

Your explanation actually proves FE.  It can and has been demonstrated repeatedly that ships that SEEM to disappear from view can be brought back into view simply by zooming in on them.  And your explanation is PRECISELY why zooming in bringing the objects back into view demonstrates that they were not obstructed by the horizon.  If they had been, they could not be brought back into view, ergo, they were not hidden by the horizon.

You clearly demonstrate that you haven't looked at any of the evidence but have already made up your mind and are now pulling stuff from your posterior to back it up.  You haven't seen the myriad demonstrations showing ships "disappearing" from bottom up over an alleged horizon only to be brought back into full view by zooming in on them.

People who "observed" these things in "ancient times" didn't have the benefit of modern optics.

Of course, this doesn't even address the contradiction of those who claim (earlier on this thread) that no curvature would be visible even from 120,000 feet because you have to be hundreds of miles up before you could see curvature.  And yet I guess you CAN see curvature from right on the surface.

Basically, when people see things that confirm their prior belief in Globe earth, then it's proof of Globe earth.  When they see something that contradicts Globe earth, then it's false, even though it contradicts the proof they just made two minutes earlier.

Massive intellectual dishonesty on this question.