/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14506565
what you consider to the be best refutation depends on your standard of evidence. for the flat earther there is obviously no argument whatsoever, because no matter what you bring up and explain, and no matter how long and how in detail you go, it will come down to them simply not wanting to accept it regardless of how weak and devoid of reason they position is shown to be.

There are several good lines of argument anyway if you're interested. Looking at the implications of a flat earth, such as how the sun/moon would move and appear to be; flight paths and distances on a flat map versus a globe (distances and routes become ridiculous on the fe map). Also, little things like the fact the horizon appears to drop below eye level with increasing altitude is a big problem for FE, which is why they always simply deny it. Demonstrating the curvature of the earth is also clearly a problem, and it can be seen, however slight it is, even from places anyone can get to (cliff tops overlooking ocean, for example).

If you attempt to go into any of these subjects with them, expect to either be ignored, insulted or, rarely, engaged for a while by someone who will throw out a whole bunch of twisted and confused stuff about, say, perspective or refraction of light in the atmosphere etc, and very little of it will be accurate. if you try to bring forth correct information on this subjects, they usually become irrational and/or disappear from the thread, to repeat their points again somewhere else.