SEXTANTS... PROVING FLAT EARTH SINCE 994 A.D.

9min 35sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SVgBj5GeLLN2/

Apparent straight lines along the surface of the Earth are not a problem since they develop curvature at a rate of inches to miles in any direction, and disappear in the greater curve. Straight lines are important in demonstrating the nature of sides and their full development in equal proportions around the Earth which, imho, is a sphere of vanishing flatness.

It must be apparent that it's not a necessity for the Earth to be flat for it to be established and still as the Bible says. But there is a necessity in the relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances. It's this necessary relation of geometry to all physical circuмstances that leads me to the rounder and round as can be Earth opinion.

Can geometry explain how water can cling to a ball? You might be able to explain this using geometry, but I haven't seen that it can be done. 

Of course, the claim is that gravity causes this, but gravity has never been proven.  In fact, more and more physicists are questioning the very existence of gravity.  Not only do we have this problem, but when adjacent to the allegedly-nearly-infinite vacuum of space, not only would the atmosphere not stay on the planet, but the water would also vaporize.  This can be easily demonstrate with a home-made vacuum chamber that has only a small percentage of the vacuum "power" that space would have.

True, gravity has not been proven. And, as you say, there's the problem of the vacuum of space (which cannot really be infinite IMO) taking away the atmosphere and water. Neither of which can be explained, as far as I know, using geometry.

I don't think that everything in physical circuмstances can to be related to geometry, as Donachie says. To me, this is because the first mover (God) is not physical, and not all of His creation can be boiled down to math. Some of it is still a mystery, and probably always will be. A flat land earth with a dome and then Heaven above the dome makes the most sense to me, but I understand that a lot of Catholics don't agree with that.

Donachie is fixated on the "sphere" being the perfect shape, but modern science's appliation of this has to do with gravity, that things naturally congeal into balls when gravity is the driving factor.

I on the other hand am 100% convinced the earth is Flat.  Just too much evidence out there invalidating the globe.  As for there being a firmament and waters above it (vs. space), that I hold to be certain de fide, as every single Church Father without exception believed this and interpreted Sacred Scripture that way (its obvious sense).  I don't hold the flatness of the earth's surface to be of faith, but the firmament and the waters above most certainly are.

Yes, modern science has to rely on the idea of gravity (which they take as a fact).

Something I noticed on that Rob Skiba video you posted yesterday, in relation to water vapor in the atmosphere. He said that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere contains enough water to cover the whole earth in one inch of water. I seem to recall in the past that the globe earthers (or some of them) believe that the Bible reference to the 'waters above' means the water vapor in the atmosphere. But then that leaves the issue of where the waters come from for the Great Flood in Noah's time. We flat earthers generally believe that those waters came from the 'waters above' the dome. It couldn't have come from water vapor if there's only enough water to cover the earth in one inch of water. Of course one theory is that the water came from below the earth, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. What do you think?

The sun can appear to change in size depending on the atmosphere, but lasers never curve, so the earth must be flat, and distant skyscrapers and mountains must always be visible until they aren't.

Nice try.  But those who conducted a laser experiments performed them in cold, low humidity conditions, took all the measurements, made calculations regarding potential refraction and, as I've pointed out many times, Dr. John D performed two-way laser experiments, where you had them going in both directions.  If conditions in one direction caused the laser to refract down (due to increasing density), the laser in the other direction would curve up due to decreasing density and refract over the top.  His experiments were conducted live-streamed and were pre-announced so that witnesses could be present.

On top of that you falsely strawman the position claiming that lasers NEVER curve down.  Nobody ever said they can't.  Problem for Globe is that the lasers consistently follow the curve of the earth, repeatedly, in experiment after experiment (including the impossible two-way laser experiment).

And ... the longer the distance, the less probable the refraction pseudo-argument (consisting of just throwing the word out there).  With those pictures taken from 200-300 miles away, you'd have miles of curvature.  To be able to experience that, the rate of refraction would have to be perfectly consistent during the entire 200-mile path.  Otherwise, some things in between would refract less, some things more, resulting in a badly distorted, and most likely hidden/missing, image.  If anything along the 200+ mile path refracted just a little bit less, it would obstruct the view of the light that was allegedly bending behind it.

Refraction is so statistically improbable as an explanation that it's laughable.  If someone were to present some other theory, such as that the charge of the earth consistently bends light around it, then I'd pay attention.  But no such theory has ever been proposed, and it's never been demonstrated that electric charge or gravity can bend light ... except to a very miniscule extent (when they measured a tiny deviation of light near the sun, or so they say, in a claim that this proves relativity).

Here's the glober argument:

MAJOR:  Earth is a globe.
MINOR:  Refraction CAN bend light to some extent.
CONCLUSION:  If any objects can be seen from "too far" away (given curvature math), it must be due to refraction.
THEREFORE:  Earth is a globe.

There's never an attempt to run the numbers and to prove that refraction IS causing this phenomenon, just an assumption that if refraction could theoretically explain it, then this must be the explanation, since we know for sure that the earth is a globe.  This is dishonest and is begging the question.  So the earth is proven a globe by assuming that the earth is a globe.  Preposterous.