Open up the paradigm dude, accept the fact that you committed a false equivalency and that was all that we needed to be righter than you.

what? that's what you did. not me. i made a mistake by not knowing the direction of the tail of a comet is dictated by its position relative to the sun. i thought it was the direction the comet is heading. and so did you.

I didn't realize that directionality was ever a point of discussion in here. This still does not negate the false equivalency between the sun and comets that you committed when you posed your original question.

Photos of the Earth exist, as well as photos of other planets and minature planet (some call it a "dwarf" planet, but I am uneasy with that term "dwarf.") Not only is there proof that large celestial bodies are spherical in shape. It is one of nature's favorite shapes, or most common geometric shape. Mind you that nature doesn't have a preference where it has an ability to choose different shapes. Certain shapes are built through physical properties of the atoms and on the most fundamental level through the Laws of Physics.

On a small scale for instance water droplets tendency to form in a spherical shape. (see illustration A) Really the picture is a shot-action photo. What is often seen as a stream of water is actually water goblets falling using high speed photography. As the water droplet falls from the nozzle you can see it transform for an irregular shape to a more uniform shape - a sphere.

The Asteroid belt is a good example where after a certain size gravity affects the shape of the object and it becomes more spherical. The smaller ones are oddly shaped, partly through collisions where bit and pieces are chiseled away. (see illustration B) If they get big enough e.g. the size of Vesta, you can see where they oval, but tend to be somewhat spherical. (see illustration C) Ceres is proof that if an object is large enough the gravitational forces will take over and influence the shape the object. And without going into detail you can see with all the inner planets to the gaseous giants they are spherical. (see illustration D) The Oort cloud which is made up of mostly icy debris is equally distributed about the solar system in a roughly spherical in shape too. (see illustration E)

If the Earth was a flat disc shape object, it would be large enough where the gravitational forces will come into play and it would morph into a sphere. For the Earth to retain a flat disc shape its mass would have to be less than the mass of Vesta.

There is a trend in nature that favors the sphere from water droplets to large large celestial objects. To say the Earth is an exemption is just plain ridiculous.

A:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OtxlQTmx1LE/hqdefault.jpg

B:
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/...-Asteroids.jpg

C:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solflu...roids3newc.jpg

D:
http://eightplanets.org/800border.png

E:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...667c673f25.jpg

oh. i see what you're saying. you can believe that if you want to. i don't particularly feel the need to. one other error i knew was there all along was the fact that there is nothing in space. nothing like air, anyway. a ball of fire or a steamy snowball in a hot room, when thrown, will both have tails. but in space, things might not work the same.

You sure about that?

this is the question on a flat earther's mind whenever anyone says "but we have pictures".

[IMG]http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/...pshhpahvx5.png[/IMG]

Photos taken at different times in different places show different weather patterns and slightly different geography? Holy moly!

are you not sure about that?

and different landmass sizes and completely different color schemes? and you say i'm quick to judge...