The question no flat-earther can answer

I notice this a lot. Those defending ball-Earth largely do not know their material as well as flat-Earthers. And those that do, don't seem to understand what secondary theories their primary theories depend on (e.g. they will defend one theory with another, not understanding Flat-Earth requires neither theory to be true).

'Twould be interesting to conduct mathematical/scientific testing for flat-Earthers and ball-Earthers. I would expect the flat-Earthers to average higher.

I find that unbelievable, as most flat-earthers that I have encountered have trouble with basic geometry. Perhaps it is more valid to assert that the small percentage of people who believe in a flat earth are, as an aggregate, more educated than the general population. Most people simply don't care enough to engage in the discussion.

Which is really sad, to say the least...

Perhaps. I think it's just reality. The shape of the earth affects very few people's daily lives.

What do you consider to be the best physical evidence?

What do you consider to be the real objective evidence?

Did my post #26 not address your question with a sufficient amount of detail?

Can’t wear shorts at the North Pole, weather does affect everyone’s lives, for some it’s prefect year round for others it’s cold year round, others it’s hot year round and everything in between.

I could say the phases of the moon . . . and I know what your answer will be!

I could say photos from space . . . and I know what your answer will be!

I could say eclipses . . . and I know what your answer will be!

In other words, in my searching I have read all these answers and checked them out and found them woefully lacking in substance. That is why I asked the question I did in the OP. If the Earth is flat with the North Pole in the center (I know there are alternate flat Earth models) then what we call the southern hemisphere actually would have much greater distances between lines of latitude than there would be with the round Earth model. Not just little differences - huge differences in distance. This then would mean the sun has to travel faster in the summer months when its round takes it south of the equator (according to flat-earth model). This in turn means shorter days - that was my question? Your post #26 only seems to give some generalities that do nothing to really answer my question. (No offense - I have good friends who are flat-Earthers - and we get along fine . . . well - most of the time! )

My wish is that I could put all flat-earthers on a ship and put them within the Antarctic Circle on the summer solstice so they could see the sun circle completely around the sky. (This of course, if you know your geography, would completely disprove the flat Earth theory (at least the one with the North Pole in the center of a flat Earth).

So has this been documented? Absolutely (but flat Earthers don't acknowledge it - the pictures are tampered with . . . etc.) But all the stats of day length and sun movement follow exactly what the round Earth theory says. Earlier I gave some identical stats for the time of daylight at identical distances north and south of the equator.

What post was that?

Post #53 was about temperature. I looked for a similar post about daylight time, but did not find it.

And your are right - post # 53 was the one I was thinking of - but it has to do with temperature not daylight time.

It would if they understood the [real] truth about the earth.

The reality is - people do not want to believe the truth indicated in this verse of scripture:

Revelation 12:

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

You completely missed my point.

Whether the earth is flat or round doesn't affect most people directly. Regardless of the exact physics of it all, the sun comes up and goes down, most people and even most Christians get up and go to work, come home to eat and sleep, and repeat the cycle. The earth's shape is simply irrelevant and it has nothing to do with deception.

That's not a valid argument. Unless you are personally doing all the research to support your position, you cannot annul someone else's evidence just because it was not collected personally.

No - I did not miss your point; however, I dare say I think you missed mine.

The difference between what you are thinking and what I am thinking is that - I very hopefully suggest, anyway - if a person knows the truth about something as paramount as this is - it most certainly will affect the way they think about the reality they live in.

Will they still have to get up and go to work in the morning?

Most likely.

Will they change some of the priorities in their life regarding what they think is most important, what they strive for, what they teach their children and grandchildren, how they react to some people and things?

Absolutely!

Um, no, they wouldn't. They'd still have to eat, sleep, and pay the bills. The shape of the earth is nowhere near paramount. If it is for you, you need help.

Your math credentials are impeccable.

I understand what you are saying. And, all of us tend to "trust" some things to a point that we ourselves have not made a proof of to ourselves.

What I am attempting to illustrate is - to what degree is a person willing to totally trust what someone else tells them without making a proof of it to themselves.

And, more importantly, how much is a person willing to defend something - and promote it as truth - strictly based on no more than what someone else told them?

Good question. I'll remember that the next time you try to tell me anything about the earth being flat.