Earth: Spherical vs Flat
Recently I've come across a lot of flat-Earthers for some reason on the internet recently. The burden of proof is on both parties as I set up the debate so that both parties are making an affirmative claim. Pro is spherical Earth model, which is me, and Con is flat Earth model, my opponent.
1st Round: Acceptance/Opening statements
2nd Round: Opening arguments
3rd Round: Rebuttals/More arguments
4th Round: More rebuttals/Closing statements
Greetings all, I am a proud flat earther. I started out, like my fellow flat heads, on my opponent's side of the pulpit. I was an atheist, and thought the earth was a ball, though I had no reason for so quaint a belief, other than the "smarter guys" said so. Mars was the place we should go, "aliens" exist, the works, but i was still a truther. Totally indoctrinated as far as NASA goes though. A friend sent me a few links on it, i said he was full of it, and I could prove it, didn't even "waste " my time watching it. My first day of research i found about 10-12 (easily refuted) proofs of a ball, and about 10 times as many for a plane. I call it a realm. Now I have come up with about 10 solid proofs of a flat earth, mostly empirical. I will share a few here for consideration. I hope my opponent has some logical or empirical evidence for a ball, and I hope he, and our voters are open minded enough to not completely disregard the idea, before fully understanding the theory, and what it implies. I'd like my opponent to carefully examine my sources, and realize that since i am basically discrediting government and mainstream sources, i wont be using many if any of them. My opponent and i are off to a rocky start from an opinion poll, but i would like him to know that whoever wins the debate, my purpose here is to spread this awakening far and wide, and am positive i will affect someone. Please check your biases at the door, i am not trolling. If my opponent has no idea on how the flat earth model works, I suggest he research this first, as to not waste valuable time and space explaining dumb things like "why ships go over a curve" or "I saw a curve from a plane". Also know that I believe the Flat Earth Society has been mostly taken over and run by shills offering disinfo to discredit this awakening, so please do not associate myself with these groups. I share ideas with the likes of O.D.D. T.V., Brian Mullin, and the like, which can be found on YouTube. With that, i leave my opponent and await his contentions.
I thank Edlvsjd for accepting my challenge and wish him good luck in the following rounds.
As my opponent mentioned in the previous round, there is a round-earth argument that ships, as they sail away from a person’s perspective, help prove that the Earth is a globe. He seems to be under the impression that this is so easily discredited that it would be a waste of my time to mention it in this debate; however, I beg to differ as the best refutations I could find after months of spending time with flat earthers on the internet are easily dismissed. So, I shall allow my opponent to formulate his own response.
The argument goes as such:
Go to the beach and watch a ship sail away from you. It will appear to sink into the horizon as you watch it go; this is impossible in a flat earth model as it indicates a curvature to the earth. Not only do ships seem to sink, but if they are far enough and sail parallel to the shore, the bottom of the ship would seem to have sunk into the water. Not only have I seen this effect personally, but so have many others; this is how people knew the earth was round since ancient periods: no citation needed.
This argument also goes for movement of the sun, stars and moon which all rise in the east and sink back into the horizon in the west. This is only possible on a globe. That is, in the flat earth model, the sun is about 2000 miles above the earth(1) and rotates around creating the effect of night and day in such a manner:
s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="224" height="224" />
However, if the sun is a set distance above the Earth, then the Sun would appear in the East above the horizon, cross the sky, instead of arcing over the sky, and disappear in the West over the horizon in a matter such as airplanes.
The Coriolis Effect
A force on earth that deflects the longitudinal movement of an object upon a rotating object. On Earth, such objects or forces, such as water or air currents moving from the equator to either pole, are deflected latitudinally, or parallel with the equator. Such movement is apparent when observing these currents, the movement of missiles, and the spin of weather systems such as hurricanes and cyclones.
s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="291" height="241" />
Movements are deflected to the right in the Northern hemisphere and to the left in the South. The best way to observe this within your own home is to observe water draining down a pipe. It drains counterclockwise if you are in the Northern hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern hemisphere. More info and a better explanation of the Coriolis effect can be found in the sources. This movement as it exists on our planet is impossible on the Flat Earth model, most apparently because of the disparity between the Northern and Southern hemispheres but also because the Flat Earth is not claimed to rotate.
There have been numerous photographs taken of Earth from outside of the atmosphere, where the entire Earth is visible and therefore so is the shape. Of course this evidence is rather flimsy as they could’ve easily been forged, but this then raises the question of why? Why would every person and organization that has ever escaped the atmosphere have lied and forged evidence? This first included the Soviet space program, then NASA and now includes many private organizations, private citizens and other government programs of other governments.
If we indeed lived upon the flat earth model as my opponent says, and we faced true North, toward the middle of the Arctic circle, then traveled West in a straight line, we would eventually reach Antarctica. However, in reality, if we were to face true North and move West in a straight line, we would eventually reach the same position. Here is a diagram:
s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="Screenshot 2016-07-21 at 11.22.08 AM.png" width="200" height="189" />
Sources:Coriolis effect: https://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu...
C1 The "mirage"
A gentleman named Joshua Nowicki has been photographing the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan for some time now. You can find them on his Facebook page. and a local news channel (2) found one and the photograph was featured on the evening news. I have been studying mirages for a few months now, and there is no such thing as an upright mirage. The distance across Lake Michigan from Michigan to Chicago is about 60 miles, we should not be able to see any of Chicago, just as the weatherman states. I contend that he is wrong in his assertion that this image is a mirage.
Planes travel level with the ground for hundreds, even thousands of miles. To keep this level, they use an artificial horizon, which is basically a gyroscope. Gyroscopes remain on the same axis on which they were started in relation to space. Consider the apparent motions the earth is experiencing at any given time. Spinning at 1,000 mph, wobbling, flying around the sun, which is following the galaxy around the universe. How are gyroscopes even reliable with all these motions, much less going from one location on a ball to say, the opposite side of it?
C2 The Horizon
Borrowing a title from my opponent, the horizon is perfectly level 360 degrees from the observer no matter his elevation. High altitude videos show this, unless one thing is in place. Curved, or fisheye lenses. NASA loves to use the gopro camera, note the oceans have disappeared in the red bull dive. All planes must have curved windows, for other obvious reasons. The "Dog cam" (4) is a video that features both a regular, and a fisheye lens. I personally love this video, because it was the first time I "saw" the flat earth. The video is not long, and is beautiful. I recommend watching it a couple of times, with popcorn, on at least a 42" screen. Also pay close attention to the sun because...
C4. The sun is close
Notice the hotspot? Notice it's size? Both the sun and moon are close, and small. If the earth were really flat, as I contend, and we see noon at Cali, and on the east coast we see it at roughly a 45 degree angle, this distance is about three thousand miles. this gives us 2 angles we know, and a distance we know. Do the math, and the sun is at about 3,000 miles above Cali. Many videos on YouTube are showing a shrinking, and growing sun and moon. The Go fast rocket launch (5) shows a moon at less than a fraction of it's original "from earth"size. Crespicular rays, when at a 90 degree angle from the viewer, are proof of a close sun.
That is a good start for my opponent, he's going to need to come up with some really good stuff for the next round, as i intend to shred his contentions to pieces in round 3.
The photo taken from Mr. Nowicki's profile and used on my opponent's source is not a photo of the mirage: it is a photo taken from atop Warren Dunes State Park, a park built around a dune that rises 260 feet over the lake, fifty miles from Chicago according to Nowicki's description of the photo. Mr. Nowicki's profile also does contain pictures of the mirage, but, as you should see, the mirage is appropriately upside down and disfigured. I'll elaborate more on seeing things from long distances in my next arguments.
Gravity. Gravity explains how gyroscopes work. Gravity pulls the gyroscope towards the center of the Earth, which appears to stay the same for the same reason that nothing is seemingly affected by the Earth's many movements: frame of motion. Everything within the atmosphere of Earth is wobbling, spinning and rotating around the sun together: this gives the impression that nothing is moving at all. It is the same reason that you can sit in the back of a car going sixty mph, throw a ball ten mph to the front of the car, and that ball will technically be moving at seventy mph, but, to the people in the car, the ball will appear to be going ten mph, because everything inside the car is going at least sixty mph.
The Earth has a circumference of almost 25,000 miles. One must be completely out of the atmosphere of the Earth in order for them to see the curvature of it, and it will still be rather difficult to see despite that, in short, you have to be very, very far from the surface. If one stands upon Earth, and looks 360 degrees around him, he is going to see an equal distance from around him (unless, of course, there are obstructions in his way) and therefore, the horizon will appear to be a circle and two-dimensional. Of course, there is eyewitness and photographic evidence from outside Earth's atmosphere demonstrating it's curvature, but, conveniently enough, it is all part of a conspiracy to keep us all believing the Earth is round for... reasons. Fish-eye lenses are well-known to be used by NASA and similar organizations; there aren't many people who can't look at a fish-eye lens and realize they are looking through a fish-eye lens. They are used to spare some visual accuracy for a broader view of what's happening.
The Sun is Close
I would like to know how my opponent got the numbers for his trigonometry, because it both has to rely on supposing the Earth is flat but also the angles are accurte. The distance of the moon is over 238,000 miles away. This is known most basically because of the use of radar and lasers. If you don't know how radar works, I'll put a link to a short explanation in the sources. Also, the distance to the sun can be calculated through trigonometry using venus as a second point instead of two places on Earth and get much closer to the actual distance from the Sun to Earth of more than 92 million miles.(1)
I would spend more time explaining these processes myself, but I'm afraid that, to my opponent, everything is a conspiracy, so I will be wasting my time. Instead, I encourage everyone to read Cornell's explanation, as it would be better than mine anyway,
Twenty-four hour days
During the summer months in Anarctica, the sun never sets and allows for twenty-four hour day. This is impossible on the flat Earth model, as Anarctica stretches around the circumfrence of the Earth, and is only possible on the round Earth model.(2) A time-lapse video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com...;
Mount Chimborazo is the highest point on planet Earth: the furthest ground from the center of the planet. If the Earth is flat, one with a modern telescope should be able to, with no problem, pear from atop Mt. Chimorazo in Ecuador to the other side of the world at Mt. Everest. Of course, this is not proven as no one has tried such a thing because no one has felt great need to prove the Earth is round for over 2000 years. Regardless, the same principle is applicable in other scenarios. Such as in the Chicago-Michigan delima. If the Earth is flat and water sits level, which it does, then one standing on the opposite shore in Michigan should be able to see Chicago every day, but they cannot. I should be able to stand on the Outer Banks in North Carolina with a telescope and see over the Atlantic ocean to Morocco. Never mind the tides because...
Gravity and Tides
Gravity does not exist on a flat Earth like it does on a round Earth. Gravity is a force that attracts massive objects to massive objects. The gravity of the moon is what pulls on the great bodies of water of Earth, causing tide. But the effect of gravity, as explained by all flat Earth models I've seen, is caused by a steady upward force of the Earth, pushing everything upon it down: this does not account for tides.
In the lunar eclipse, on the round Earth model, the moon is on exactly the opposite side of the Earth from the sun and, because of that, looms in the Earth's shadow perfectly. We can see the Earth's round shape as the lunar eclipse sets. Yet again, any of this phenomina is impossible on a flat Earth model.
First observed by Aristotle, when he noticed that there seem to be different stars in the sky at Cyprus and Egypt where he had went on a trip. This is because the latiudinal curvature of the Earth blocks out our view of star and star constellatons at different latitudes as illustrated with this image:
This is impossible on a flat Earth because you would be able to see all or at least more constellations on your respective longitudinal position, such as in this image:
The View of the Moon
The view of the moon is introverted between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, as seen here:
This is impossible on a flat Earth model.
Warren Dunes State Park http://www.michigan.org...;
How radar works: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Rebuttals from r2
Ships never go over any curve (which goes against common sense seeing that the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface), they only disapear because they, and everything else follow a few rules of perspective, atmospheric perspective and the law of perspective. Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust, anything that hovers close to the flat earth that will block light. A telescope will bring it back into view, provided it can see through the dense atmosphere, which gets thicker with distance. Any videos, I've seen and proven this, that show boats going over the horizon only lower the camera to below where the waves break. Alternatively, and anyone can try this, when a camera is placed at one end of a football field, and a person walks away, his shoes will disappear relatively quickly, at about 50 yards, his shorts up will only be visible.(1) This in combination with the apparent shrinking of the person from the law of perspective makes it appear as though he were dropping over some curve, though we know that football fields are near perfectly level from goalpost to goalpost. This explains perfectly why the sun appears to go "over" the horizon. Watch a car drive away from you on a long, flat stretch of highway, and notice that soon the car's wheels seem to disappear, and the cars body will be dragging (without bags).
The coriolis effect
The coriolis effect is, plainly put, supposedly the effect of an object over a moving object. He poses that water, air, missiles, and water draining a certain direction in different hemis (spheres). The latter is a common misconception, in that the direction your toilet flushes only depends on several factors including the shape of the bowl, and others (2). As for missiles, How can it be that the earth moves under missiles and bullets, that stay aloft for at most a few minutes, bullets only mere seconds, but anyone who takes a balloon ride can float around for hours on end, and land in the same spot? Planes that take off easterly take the same amount of time on a flight going west. Anyone can look up on a cloudy day and see clouds moving in any direction, sometimes in multiple directions! Why is the coriolis effect so selective? Neither i nor my opponent have directed a missile, so this is but heresay, but we see storms rotating, so let's a dress this. In the flat earth model, the sun and moon are rotating above the earth, close to the "equator" causing a "wake" so to speak, also affecting the oceans, causing tides. More on this later.
This is by far the most hilarious and fanning evidence AGAINST a spherical Earth by far. I will prove that at least one or more of NASA's photos are faked, and it will be assumed, given the circumstances, that all are faked as well.
There are no actual photos of Earth in existence. There are a few composites, (they admit this, and high altitude flights over a flat earth can be pieced together in Photoshop too) a painting or two, and some cgi. With the thousands of satellites out there, shouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of them by now. They supposedly had the technology to do it in the 60's!
In this comparison, America has over doubled in size.
Blatant copying and pasting of cloud formations. Proof two.
The word "sex" in cloud formations, really? My 8 year old brought this home on the cover of her dictionary. Proof three. I suppose it could happen after all there must be photographs somewhere on the internet of full words in clouds. Wait, I found one!
I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.
NASA claims it has a few actual photos of earth, but not one of them show a trace of any of the thousands of satellites said to be in orbit at varying heights around the earth.You would think, that with that many giant pieces of aluminum, baler wire, duct tape, and tinfoil flying around the world, some of them would reflect some light back to the camera with the sun at the cameras back. How many real pictures of these satellites do we have? Close to none, if any.
In this photo, earth is relatively small, considering earth is 4 Times bigger than the moon. Common sense says if he were actually on the moon, the earth would appear 4 times bigger than the moon appears from earth.
As for the why? I could name quite a few reasons, but as I'm limited on space, I'll just leave this here.
The flat earth is a disc with true north being in the middle. Essentially, going around the world is actually going in a very large circle. No pilot actually flies in a "straight line", they fly by compass, easterly, with true north constantly on the left, and vice versa for west bound flights.
My opponent and i agree that the image isn't a mirage, but disagree on the distance, and whether we should see it or not. Firstly, my opponent states that the picture was taken from Warren Dunes state park, but offers no source. I on the other hand, have the original tweet from Mr Nowicki saying otherwise.
And the distance, as the crow flies, is 57 miles.
and again none of Chicago should be visible.
My opponent blames gravity for pulling the gyroscope back to an upright position, but anyone who has had a gyroscope knows that gyroscopes defy gravity, doing all sorts of curious things. He ignores that gyroscopes stay in a fixed position in relation to space.
My opponent argues that ships go over a curve at a mere 3 miles, yet at 100km, being able to see hundreds of miles in any direction, we can't see a curve? The horizon is always at eyey level no matter the altitude. If the earth were a ball, the horizon should drop the further up you go, but it doesn't.
The sun is close
Here is the math.
My opponent talks of radars and lasers as if anyone reading this actually could confirm this data, while completely ignoring the arguments of the hotspot in the video, and the sun and moon's apparent sizes changing from several videos on YouTube. Anyone can buy a relatively inexpensive welders visor, and video the sun rising and setting, seeing the change in size. This would be impossible if it were stationary at a distance of 93 million miles.
Twenty-four hour days
Antarctica is off limits to civilians. This is another one of those "NASA told me, I believe them" proofs. And the video was found to be a fake.
As we can see from 60 miles, Chicago has shrunk to a fraction of it's original size. This is once again due to the law of perspective. No telescope today could see across the plane. Also atmosphere would totally block the light, and does so, in the case of Chicago and Michigan. This time lapse shows how Chicago flits in and out of site, especially in the morning, when the atmosphere is the thickest.
One can only imagine the size of a city another 60 miles away, and anyone who has ever aimed a telescope at a land mass can attest to the fact that they can't allow one to see forever.
Gravity and Tides
I can tell you have been to the tfes forums. The earth is not moving. Mass is not attracted to mass. Things are better explained with buoyancy. Tides come in and go out 2-3 times a day, the moon passes over but once. The tides could be caused by the earths floating on the waters below, or by the wake of the passing sun and moon.
My opponent states that this is due to " the moon is on exactly the opposite side of the Earth from the sun". One event disproves this: Selenelions. This happens when a lunar eclipse happens when both the sun and moon are both above the horizon. Over 50 recorded selenelions have been recorded to date.
Also, no experiment has shown that an object can cast a red shadow, as in the case of blood moons.
The stars are close, and small, hung in the firmament. The law of perspective causes them to "dip below" the horizon. The idea was widely supported, even as recently as Tesla.
The view of the moon
Again, the moon is close and small. Stand in any room, opposite another person, where he is on one corner and you in another. Say a quarter were glued to the ceiling, directly between. If you saw the quarter rightside up, your friend wI'll see it upside down. Simple.
My opponent left me with room for a small argument.
The Michelson Morley experiment
This experiment proves that the stars move, not the earth.
Rebuttals for rebuttals
That only goes against common sense if the world is flat, which is why the Earth is round. My opponent goes on to explain away the sinking of ships over the horizon by stating that atmospheric perspective, or air that distorts light and therefore the object moving away, is to blame for the effect, because, as the object moves away and seems to become smaller and smaller, the distorted light covers more and more of the object. And in the case of the football field that he produces, this is accurate. However, this is only the case when the line of sight of the person watching the ship leave, is level with the bottom of the ship, which is not true. My opponent also claims that any videos he's seen depicting ships sinking into the horizon lower the camera to give the ship the appearance of it sinking. Not only is this erroneous for obvious reasons but it is patently and provably false by merely going to the ocean yourself, if you feel the need to, watch a ship leave, preferably from a high vantage point above the ship, such as from the top of a cliff or a lighthouse and watch the ship sink into the horizon because of the curvature of the Earth.
My opponent claims that the direction that water drains in different hemispheres is a common misconception because the direction the toilet flows depends on several factors such as the shape of the bowl. However, the direction the water flows only depends on two factors: the shape of the bowl, which I suppose my opponent thinks, conveniently enough, that all drains in all of the Southern hemisphere are shaped to drain clockwise and all drains in the North are shaped to drain the other way, and which hemisphere you're in because reasons I already explained. A lot of drains are shaped so as to drain the water a certain direction, but, as my opponent's source claims, there is still a force, however small, that would cause the water to drain a certain way if there is no architectural favor taken to one direction.
Firstly, the Earth is hardly moving under projectiles and balloons because gravity again. Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface. Which is why you can jump in the air and land pretty much in the same space. Which is why you don't feel like you're spinning over 1,000mph. Secondly, unless the balloon is anchored to the ground by a rope, it's not going to land in the same place as before after just floating aimlessly. Thirdly, this is not because of the Earth moving: this is because wind and air currents exist, and should also exist on a flat Earth model: they blow the balloon. Clouds move in different directions because of weather systems and density differences between cold and hot air: these exist on the round-Earth model. It actually isn't "hearsay" because, while I may not have shot a missile, I've fired long-distance shots with firearms, and the Coriolis effect had an impact. My opponent also didn't address the fact that hurricanes and cyclones spin according to the Coriolis effect, even in different directions according to the hemisphere it is in.
My opponent thinks the photos taken are laughable. He links to a video of a grown man who laments that he can't find a photo of Earth that isn't a composite or obvious fake with a ten second Bing search. Because of this, my opponent and the video maker assume that there are no actual photos of Earth ever made ever. Never mind what composite photo means, by the way. Then he links to a few images that, if you close your eyes and pretending to see proof that it's all a conspiracy, then you'll see proof that it is all a conspiracy. My opponent only addresses NASA. I only made this original point to see how far my opponent carries his tin foil hat. He also asks for evidence that satellites are in space, to that I can direct him here:
Or perhaps the GPS on his phone.
My opponent failed to address my original point. Claiming that all airplane pilots and air traffic controllers are now also in the conspiracy, he says that airplanes appearing to travel straight from East to West (or West to East) are actually flying in a great circle. This still doesn't address the fact that, if you were to stand in Lincoln, Nebraska, stand facing true North, turn 90 degrees right and follow that direction in a straight line you would eventually end right back in Lincoln, Nebraska instead of Antarctica as a flat Earth model would suggest.
My opponent reasserts his claim, using a tweet from Mr. Nowicki as a source and stating I do not have one. I restate my source as Facebook, in which, if it is not the same photo from the tweet, then it was taken at the same time. But the description reads that it was taken from atop Warren Dunes State Park. I said this in my original argument.
"My opponent argues that ships go over a curve at a mere 3 miles, yet at 100km, being able to see hundreds of miles in any direction, we can't see a curve?"
I didn't say ships go over a curve at 3 miles: it's much longer than that. And I'm not sure what 100km he is referring to.
"The horizon is always at eyey level no matter the altitude"
The Andes in my horizon are not eye level with me.
"If the earth were a ball, the horizon should drop the further up you go, but it doesn't."
This is applicable even on a flat Earth: the further you get from the ground, the more in the sky you get, the more sky you see. Is it not possible to go up on a flat Earth. What about airplanes? Because I've been in airplanes, and when I'm in an airplane, I look down at the horizon whereas I look up at the horizon from the ground.
The Sun is Close
I never addressed the math of my opponent trigonometry. Radar technology is actually quite easy to get a hold of. I ignored the arguments of the hotspot because the hotspot presented no argument. My opponent seems to be confusing arguments with staring at pictures and thinking that it looks funny. Evidence must be solid, and reasonably unexplainable for the other side in order to be proof.
Twenty-four Hour days
Antarctica is not off-limits to every civilian. Even if they weren't, this is another one of those "Absolutely everyone that disagrees with me is a liar and evidence they offer is a forgery because everything is a conspiracy" rebuttals. There are other videos. NASA isn't involved in Antarctica, so I'm not even sure how that came up. There are seven nations on Antarctica.
The convenient thing about the other side being a conspiracy is that all evidence against you is a forgery or a lie, so you can attribute everything to "thick atmosphere." When modern telescopes are still perfectly capable of seeing at least more than 60 miles away.
Gravity and Tides
My opponent accuses me of frequenting the forums of "the flat earth society" and, despite the fact that this is not true, does nothing to distance himself from the members of that organization. I know that flat earthers don't believe in gravity because it is impossible on a flat earth model and also because my opponent is not the first flat earther that I have talked to/debated. Additionally, he provides no good explanations for how tides come in, but at least he does not try to claim that tides don't exist. Here is how tides work:
Selenelions are thought to be possible due to atmospheric refraction
The Earth's atmosphere, when eclipsing the moon, filters out all shorter wavelengths than red and refracts over the surface of the moon. This is the same effect that causes the sky to be blue.
It is also worth noting that my opponent didn't bother to give an explanation of how lunar eclipses could work on a flat earth.
My opponent didn't bother rebutting my point here, just made an argument from authority by citing Nikola Tesla who, in the quote provided, did not even support my opponent. He merely mentions stars being in the sky or firmament "Though free to think and act, we [humanity] are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable." and that science recognizes that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are seen as one body, "Science, too, recognizes this connectedness of separate individuals, though not quite in the same sense as it admits that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are one body...", none of which has anything to do with this argument or even this debate.
The View of the Moon
I have to admit that I laughed here. My opponent states that, if you stand in a room representing Earth, taped a quarter to the middle of the ceiling to represent the moon, and you and a friend stood on opposite sides of the room to represent people on both hemispheres, then you would see the quarter oppositely. Yes, the quarter would flip from one side of the room to the other if you stand opposite. But if both people faced the same wall, such as two people on Earth both face North, they would see the quarter the same in the room.
The Michelson-Morley Experiment
I don't have the characters to address the experiment: watch the video and see how it doesn't address my opponent's point at all.
My opponent's arguments are either laughable or insulting. And his rebuttals are equally so. Vote PRO
"That only goes against common sense if the world is flat,"
Even a child in a bathtub sees this, no experiment ever has shown water to do anything but find it's level. However, when centrifugal force is applied to it, water escapes such things as tennis balls, but not the earth, isn't this curious, yet another gravity excuse.
"And in the case of the football field that he produces, this is accurate. However, this is only the case when the line of sight of the person watching the ship leave, is level with the bottom of the ship"
As the camera is inches from the football fields floor, and the football field is a fraction of 3 miles, where the supposed horizon is for a 6' tall human is, the scaling is accurate. With this, it stands that ships do not go over a curve. This phenomenon was filmed by a spherical Earth proponent, and analyzed by a flat earth proponent, and the results are interesting.
As I've stated, a telescope or telescopic lens will bring the ship back into full view. Does my opponent propose that telescopes possess some magical property, being able to pull the ship backwards over the curve? I ask that common sense be used in dispelling this overused, proposterous proof of a spherical earth once and for all.
The coriolis effect
" ,...that all drains in all of the Southern hemisphere are shaped to drain clockwise and all drains in the North are shaped to drain the other way,"
I suppose my opponent has inspected every toilet in both hemispheres to prove this, and can positively relate this to the small force of the earth's supposed spin. Drains go a certain way due to both the shape of the bowl, and the direction of entry that the water makes.
"Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface."
So, the bullet, with great force in one direction, allows the earth to spin under it, but balloons, allowed to float freely, do not? This is illogical to say the least.
"Clouds move in different directions because. ..:"
But I thought that "Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface"? My opponent is contradictory.
" I've fired long-distance shots with firearms, and the Coriolis effect had an impact."
"... hurricanes and cyclones spin according to the Coriolis effect, even in different directions according to the hemisphere it is in."
They spin in both directions in both hemispheres, this proves nothing.
" Never mind what composite photo means, by the way"
My opponent draws the reader away from my argument, I repeat, ALL "photos" of earth from space are composites. This means that photos of earth are "stitched together in Photoshop. I can take pictures of animals in the zoo, piece them together, and create ligers, zebraffes, and elephippos, this does not make them fact. I'm reminded of a flat earth proponent asking a skeptic why he thought we went to the moon, when the skeptic replied, I saw it on TV, the flat earth proponent answered, I saw a 200 foot gorilla climbing buildings, and kidnapping white chicks, do you also believe this? All jokes aside, click on any details of any image with one exception, and you will see "composite image" in the description.
As I mentioned, there is one famous photo of earth, this video explains how the image was produced. Pretty clever, but fake, for sure.
"He also asks for evidence that satellites are in space, to that I can direct him here:
Unclear what the link means, and how it supports the existence of satellites, if he is talking about "satellite" images, this can also be done with high altitude flights.
"Or perhaps the GPS on his phone."
Cell tower triangulation has been used for years, the idea that they abandoned this technique in favor of a more expensive one to track you down instead of building more and better towers (we see them going up all around us) is ridiculous. Satellites are said to be in the thermosphere, which is said to reach some 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Please tell me which elements can withstand this heat, and see if satellites are made entirely of this material.
"...if you were to stand in Lincoln, Nebraska, stand facing true North, turn 90 degrees right and follow that direction in a straight line..."
Another strawman. Please explain to our viewers how you propose to do this, and prove your ball.
"I restate my source as Facebook, in which, if it is not the same photo from the tweet, then it was taken at the same time."
How can one man take two photos at the same time? Regardless, the photo I presented is proved to be 57 miles away, and we should not see what we see. The proof stands, as no valid refutation has been offered by my opponent, this proof is empirical.
"I didn't say ships go over a curve at 3 miles: it's much longer than that"
I never said you did, but it is suggested by spherical geometry that the average human sees 3 miles to the horizon, this is where the earth should start dropping.
Correction, 100km is the "karma line" or firmament, 100,000 ft is what most balloons achieve. As you can see from my video, the earth stays at eye level, and perfectly flat, so what you think you saw from a plane, or toward the Andes is irrelevant.
"This is applicable even on a flat Earth: the further you get..."
Not for an infinite plane, simulations prove this.
" I ignored the arguments of the hotspot because the hotspot presented no argument. "
It shows empirical proof that the sun is near the earth, the hotspot would be impossible if it were 93 million miles away. This proves my point, and can't be refuted.
"Evidence must be solid..."
My opponent has not explained this, how much more solid than seeing with your eyes can you get?
Twent-four hour days
"Antarctica is not off-limits to every civilian."
No civilian is allowed to freely explore Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty prevents this. Try to go, and ignore the warnings they give you to turn back, please.
" NASA isn't involved in Antarctica..."
Operation Highjump was in 1946-1947, this was to find the dome. Nasa started in 1959, to monopolize space travel, or to prevent anyone from reaching the dome. The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 to prevent anyone else from finding it, Operation Fishbowl was in 1962, this was to try and destroy the dome. Now, these missions will tell you other reasons obviously, but the puzzle fits together nicely. Whether you want to put it together is up to you, your ignorance is not my problem.
" When modern telescopes are still perfectly capable of seeing at least more than 60 miles away."
If there were no such thing as an atmosphere. Again, common sense.
Gravity and Tides
"Here is how tides work:
This is how mainstream science say tides work, since I've offered an alternative, reasonable explanation for tides, and there was no rebuttal, this can no longer be considered proof of a spherical earth. But to satisfy the matter, let's look at why the tides supposedly happen twice per day on a spherical earth. From my opponents source:
"The bulge on the side of the Earth opposite the moon is caused by the moon "pulling the Earth away" from the water on that side."
This is complete nonsense. if the earth were pulling the earth away from the water, with it's miniscule amount of gravity relative to the earths, there would be no tide on the side that faces the moon. Furthermore, how can this miniscule force out pull the earths gravity, which is holding even air magically velcroed to it's surface "mostly"? Why isn't anything else pulled towards the moon? Gravity is said to get stronger with proximity, so what stops the moon from pulling the earths waters to its surface? The whole idea is stupid, and requires another explanation.
"Selenelions are thought to be possible due to atmospheric refraction"
So we are to believe that "refraction" causes the light from both bodies rot bend itself In opposite directions, AND causes the shadow to move in the wrong direction to boot?
"It is also worth noting that my opponent didn't bother to give an explanation of how lunar eclipses could work on a flat earth."
Regardless of what actually causes lunar eclipses, it's apparent that the earth does not block the light from the sun, and more research needs to be done. A few explanations are offered in the flat earth model, but I lean more toward Rahu, as the ancients believed. An invisible, 3rd body that comes betweenthe sun and moon on occasion. The ancients were not dumbed down versions of us, building complex structures such as the pyramids which we can begin to explain, some even believe they had unlimited electrical power, this would explain the light bulb like objects in ancient texts and drawings.
"My opponent didn't bother rebutting my point here, "
I'd did, the stars are close, and like the sun and moon, they disappear over the horizon like we see the sun and moon do, due to the law of perspective (football field?)
I merely stated that the firmament was supported by Tesla. Not sure what my opponent is trying to say with the rest of this paragraph.
The view of the moon
Laugh if you want, if the moon were close, and circled around at the equator line, the same results would occur.
In conlusion, the spherical earth theory does not stand up to reexamination. Vote CON!