Original article:
https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
Right out the gates, this article asserts that "humanity has known the earth is round for a few millennia". This is a complete lie, since the shape of the earth was a hot topic of discussion as late as the 1950s. Anyway, on with the claims...
a. The Moon
This first mistruth is made of several assumptions compiled into one big incorrect assertion. Firstly, the 'shadow' on the moon from the earth is only and has only ever been an assumption, and other plausible explanations exist. Furthermore, the selenelion eclipse (otherwise known as "the impossible eclipse", because it is impossible in the globe earth theory) proves that this CANNOT be the correct explanation and that another explanation must be sought.
Also of note, the article suggests that Foucault's Pendulum is proof of a rotating earth. Perhaps the author isn't aware that this also isn't true, but more on that in another article.
b. Ships and the horizon
This article provides only a single plausible explanation for this phenomenon, and fails to mention that a flat surface ALSO sees this phenomenon due to perspective and angular resolution. Due to the fact that both a flat and curved surface show similar effects, the original article presents to you a false henchotomy; this is not proof of a globe.
c. Star constellations
This 'proof' relies on the assumptive distance to the stars in the first place, which not only has not but cannot be proven. If the stars were closer then this effect could easily be explained by perspective as well. Additionally, the author fails to mention why certain constellations can be seen extremely far south and north, and fails to explain adequately why Polaris can be seen in the southern hemisphere. All in all, this is not proof of a globe.
d. Shadows and sticks
The author asserts that on a flat surface, shadows would always be equal. This assumes a distant sun and parallel rays, and neither of these assumptions has been proven conclusively true. A small, local sun could easily show the same shadows as a distant sun with a curved surface, and as such cannot be used as a proof of a globe.
e. Seeing farther from higher
This is one of the silliest "proofs" of a globe. Do I even need to explain why you'd see farther at a higher distance on a flat plane? Angular resolution and perspective, again.
f. Ride a plane
The original article implies that all a flat earth person must do is go in a plane. The problem is, I know many flat earthers who are pilots, so clearly this is no solution. Anyway, the assertions made are...
Planes can travel for long distances and not fall off any edges.
Planes can also circle the Earth without stopping.
You can see the curvature of the earth from a plane window.
All three of these supposed proofs are also possible on a flat plane. Let's look at them one at a time
The first point of 'not falling off edges' is a strawman, and unpleasant lie told by controlled opposition organisation Flat Earth Society, who knowingly give bad arguments to make the concept of a flat earth seem ridiculous. Honest flat earthers will tell you they don't know if there is an edge, so the idea you'd have to fall off an edge is silly and simplistic.
Secondly, people assert that you can simply circle the earth without stopping. Of course, anyone who claims this has never actually done it, but that is besides the point. East - west, west to east, and south northbound circumnavigation are all possible on either a flat plane or a globe, and have all been done many times. The only type of circumnavigation that is possible on a globe and impossible on a flat plane is north southbound, and this has never been done, so this is not a proof of a globe.
Lastly, the idea that you can see the curve from a plane window is just down to perception. Some people can see a curve through curved plane windows, but this could simply be the barrel distortion from the curved windows and is not proof of any curve. What is far more interesting is that if you look out both windows, you will see land at your eye level. This is impossible on a ball that you are 30k feet above.
g. Look at other planets
This is one of the more unpleasant lies of the heliocentric model. Suffice to say, looking above you is not proof of what is below you. If I am in a coffee shop and look up, I will see lights, a ceiling and a few other things. Must I assume that the floor is made of the same properties and materials as the ceiling? This is obviously silly. To study the sky is not to study the earth, and therefore this is not a proof of the earth being a planet floating in space.
Just to be crystal clear - Flat Earthers do NOT believe that the earth is a planet floating in space. We believe that we are the floor of the universe, and everything you observe is happening above you in the sky. There is 0 evidence we are on a planet, and NASA themselves admit to photoshopping many of the "photos" you see of earth. More on that in another article.
The article also asserts that Galileo saw the moons of jupiter rotating around it! Did he, now? Well, you can test this yourself. Get a 30x zoom camera, far more advanced that the sorts of equipment available in the 1600s, and see if you can see this for yourself. You can't!
h. The existence of time zones
Time zones exist, this is true. And they are possible in both a flat earth and globe earth cosmology. In the globe model, the axial rotation of the earth causes day, night and timezones, and in the flat model it is instead the sun moving across the sky which causes these two effects, in combination with atmospheric lensing, perspective and angular resolution.
As both models have a plausible explanation, it is not a proof of either model.
I. Gravity
To quote the original article "Here's an interesting fact about mass: It attracts things to it. "
Nope. There is no scientific proof of this assertion. There are flawed experiments such as The Cavendish Experiment which is unable to control for a number of things it would have to in oder to be a proof of the attraction of masses to each other, and globe earth proponents offer nothing more. You can't control for a number of other known forces, and you also can't manipulate the earth's mass in order to test the hypothesis. Suffice to say, asserting that mass attracts mass is not a proof of it, and neither is The Cavendish Experiment.
J. images from space
I'll be brief with this answer. If you live in the age of photoshop and you think an image is proof of anything being real, then perhaps this whole topic is a little too advanced for you.
So as you can see, every single "proof" here is either possible on a flat plane as well, or is so deeply flawed as to be dishonest to even invoke it as a proof in the first place.