Neil De Grasse Tyson says the horizon is flat at 128,000 feet, so at what height will the Earth curve?

How high must I go to come straight down and the spin of the Earth will cause me to land in a different spot?

It is accepted belief that long range snipers must accurately adjust their aim to account for the Coriolis effect, why do no other projectiles require these same adjustments?

It is said that the ball earth wobbles on its axis and this causes the phenomenon known as the polar star procession. Thuban was previously the pole star until our current pole star Polaris assumed it’s position around 2000 years ago. This cycle takes 26,000 years to reset. This wobble is also the cause of the 26,000 year cycle known as the procession of the equinoxes, where the sun will rise in front of a different constellation every 2150 years during the vernal equinox. So according to these numbers Polaris should be moving off its axis to the tune of a degree every 72 years, about the average duration of a human lifespan. So, where was Polaris located in our sky when it became the Pole star? Where is it headed? When will it’s movement cause the apparent perfect circle rotations of the stars around it to alter this nightly pattern?

The most commonly sited globe proof is that ships going straight away from an observer will begin to disappear bottom first after reaching the horizon. Globe believers say that it must be curvature that is causing this phenomenon but a ramp would produce the same effect. How was the ramp hypothesis of bottoms missing scientifically eliminated?

Online there is a time lapse video of Skunk Bay taken over the course of a whole day. In the center of the frame there is an inlet with 3 story buildings. In the beginning of the video the buildings and ground they sit on are seen in their entirety as they are too close to be obstructed by any curvature. As the day goes on the water level appears to rise up and obstruct even the top floors of the buildings from being seen. While tides are causing the water level to rise, never would the water level reach high enough to get in the line of sight between camera and buildings. So, while it is evident that atmospherics and optics are capable of obscuring objects that should not be hidden by curvature, how can we be positive that the same phenomenon aren’t obscuring the bottoms of things beyond the horizon?

According to modern cosmology the sun is a star 93 million miles away and the next closest star is 25 trillion miles away. That is over 273,000 times further than the sun. If you double the distance to something it’s apparent size shrinks by half until eventually the angular size of the object becomes too small for our eyes to resolve and it will disappear. Given the sun’s already petite size from the earth I estimate that ten to twenty halvings would render the sun too small to resolve, so how are we able to resolve similar objects at distances that would have made our sun disappear long before those distances?

Why are there no videos of spacesuits being tested in vacuums?

Has there ever been an experiment testing whether the horizon is actually the distance away predicted by the mathematics of the ball earth?

Flat earthers have made countless observations in which things that should be hidden below the curvature of the earth are seen above the horizon line. The standard answer is that is not physical matter you are seeing but rather a holographic image of the object caused by the refraction of light up, around, and down the curve of the earth. Can this phenomenon be demonstrated in a laboratory or in any scientific way?

Is there an observation that we can make that couldn’t possibly happen on the ball described to us by modern science and would render the globe theory wrong?

The most common proof for gravity, an attraction force between all objects due to their mass, is an experiment by Henry Cavendish in which he suspended two steel balls attached to a torsion rod and then added two more balls and was able to detect and measure the attraction caused by balls gravitational attraction to each other. Besides this experiment we never witness any mass attract any other mass besides objects being attracted to the Earth. It is argued that the Earths mass is so much greater than anything that sits upon it that the attraction between objects does not happen as the Earth’s attractive force renders their gravity inert. Why did the Earth’s gravity not render Cavendish’s balls attractive force null?

The ball earth contains at it’s center a magnetic molten iron layer with temperatures of 8000 degrees Fahrenheit called the core. The Earth’s electromagnetic field is said to be generated by this iron. On the earth iron has been shown to lose its magnetic properties around 1417 degrees Fahrenheit. How does the iron in the core maintain it’s magnetic properties at such extreme temperatures? One explanation I’ve heard is that it is able to do so because it is in a constant tumbling motion like a drying machine. Can this be demonstrated?

What are the odds that the angular size of a planet’s moon and it’s star that it revolves around are exactly the same for the inhabitants of the planet like we witness here on Earth?

Amateur rockets achieve their greatest speed just after take off and slow down as they reach the thinning atmosphere. Space rockets are able to achieve their greatest speeds at the highest altitudes with the thinnest of atmosphere and therefore the least resistance. What is the difference in your rockets that allows for such a phenomena?

Einstein said he had come to the conclusion that there is no optical experiment that can detect the motion of the earth. Even his ideas about relativity theorize that it doesn’t matter if you were sitting on the sun, it would be impossible to tell what was moving. If we accept that the motion of the earth cannot be detected, then why do we consider it’s motion around the sun scientific?

Is it just coincidence that the mark of the beast is 666 and the earth is moving around the sun at 66,600 mph?

The scientific method of using number and measurement to glean the nature of reality was first proposed to Descartes by an angel in a dream. Why are these metaphysical origins of science not taught in University?

Why do NASA astronauts train for spacewalks in a pool, conditions polar opposite to the pressureless vacuum of space all while receiving assistance from a team of scuba divers that surely will not be there for the real thing? Doesn’t practicing in conditions most closely resembling the real thing best guarantee the success of the mission?

Triangulating the sun and moon would yield the same numbers as they occupy the same space in the sky and are the same size. How were you able determine that the sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away then the moon?

In order to know the actual size of something in the sky while only being able to measure it’s apparent size, one must either know the distance to that object or have all the values of a similar object in the sky from which to scale. While it is quite clear that achieving actual measurements of distance and size of heavenly objects using any of man’s tools for measurement is impossible, accurate estimates would require at least one measurement that was definitely accurate to extrapolate the rest of the data. What was this first measurement and how was it achieved?

It is said that Eratosthenes was able to prove the Earth was a ball by measuring shadow angles with a stick and a well 2500 years ago. Flat earthers argue that a small local sun over a flat Earth would yield the same results. What did Eratosthenes do to eliminate the possibility of a flat Earth with a local sun? Was Eratosthenes aware of refraction of light caused by the changing density of our atmosphere and it’s ability to change the actual position of the sun and the angle at which it’s rays strike the earth?

Why was Space X allowed to change footage from the youtube live feed of one of it’s double rocket landings in which the split screen that was said to be displaying two different camera feeds from two different rockets contained the same footage in both frames, after the live feed had ended though YouTube claims that it does not allow such action?

If I go out to the ocean, hold a stick at my chest height, then drop my eyes below that stick the horizon in front of me will be below that stick. As the horizon is said to be the last part of the ball I can see dependent on my eye height and tangential sight around the ball, when I raise my eyes up my horizon should be further than my original horizon and therefore below the original horizon as a ball curves down and away in all directions. However when I raise my eyeline above that chest high stick, the horizon is now above that stick. Why is this an invalid test for proving the horizon is not a physical thing?

According to the heliocentric model a perfect cue ball alignment called syzygy is required for an eclipse to happen. However in a common lunar eclipse called a selenelion, the eclipse happens while both the sun and Moon are visible above the horizon. How is this possible if the earth is not directly in between the sun and moon? A common response to this is that the moon is actually below the horizon but just the right atmospheric conditions are refracting the moon and lifting it above the horizon. However these selenelions are predicted with the same accuracy as all other eclipses and are labeled as selenelions prior to the actual eclipse. How are scientists able to predict the right atmospherics will be present the day of to cause the phenomena?

All models of the solar system show an extremely distant and enormous sun whose rays strike the earth parallel to each other. However in NASA’s diagram of solar eclipses the sun’s rays converge to a point, and then diverge striking the moon and continuing their path to the Earth. How is it possible that parallel rays are the normal orientation of the sun’s rays but during eclipses those same rays are converging and diverging?

How is it that empty space with nothing in it can constantly expand as the infinite vacuum of outer space is said to be doing? How can something that is infinite expand?

It is believed by globe believers that the slow drift of the foucalt pendulum is proof that the earth is spinning under the pendulum causing the procession. Einstein said he believed no optical experiment could detect the motion of the Earth so did he disagree with the conclusion accepted by most. Furthermore as relativity is accepted and used to explain why we cannot feel the movement of the earth due to our tethering to the same inertial frame of reference as the Earth, what allows the pendulum to break from this inertial frame to display the affects of rotation unlike anything else on the Earth?

Famous physicists including Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawkings, and George Ellis have stated that science is unable to prove the models we accept as reality and instead choose our models with a philosophical desire to adhere to the Copernican principal, that the Earth cannot occupy an important space and role in the universe. How is this preselected bias for interpreting observation considered sound science?

Michio Kaku said that noone within his field uses the scientific method to ascertain the nature of the heavens. Why are theoretical cosmologists given grants and television time and prestige when conducting unfalsifiable pseudoscience?