The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Earth is flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,881 times Debate No: 87752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (74)
Votes (0)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

The earth is flat. I have researched the subject for 6 months now, and there are more proofs on the side of a flat earth then I can find on a spherical one. The debate format shall be as follows. Round one is acceptance. In round 2, I state my argument, and con can either use this round for rebuttal or state arguments against the flat earth. Round 3 is for rerebuttals, and further arguments, if possible. Round 4 is strictly for rebuttals and round 5 should be used for conclusions but no new arguments in the last round. Please respect your opponents many sources and media may be used in your argument till that source is proven unreliable or the media is shown to be faked or false. Good luck, I hope to provide insight as well as receive it. I do ask that anyone accepting this debate please have a look at least at the flat earth theory before accepting and arguing against it as it has become redundant arguing the same 10 or so proves that the earth is a sphere. It is not required but makes for a better debate for the both of us. I also ask that theoretical math equations be excluded from the arguments, as they will confuse voters, though not to be confused with basic math as in Pythagoras theorem, and the like.
TheRussian

Con

I accept. I note that my opponent has sole BoP.

Please present your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro


I'm sure you'll agree the globe heliocentric model has been drilled into your head since as far as you can remember. Pictures of the globe have been presented to you in textbooks, television programs(ever wonder why they call it television programming?) and on the covers of dictionaries and encyclopedias. This is the very definition of indoctrination. You or I have never seen the earth in it's entirety, neither has your teacher. In fact, only a handful of people claim to have been far enough away to see this. I ask you, can pictures be doctored? Can humans lie? It is not my aim to convince you that you have been deceived, I do however, want to encourage you to do the research yourself, and bring about a few questions you probably never knew you had. In this debate, I will talk about coincidences and things that don't make sense about the story given to us. I also want you to know that the establishment has already thought of a lot of this, and provided reasonable, though questionable explanation or lies for most of these questions, it is ultimately up to you, and our voters to decide whether to trust your own senses, or believe what government sources tell us who have a crappy track record of truthfulness so far.
http://www.debate.org...
I want to state a few proofs that the earth is not a globe. I'll start with some obvious ones that you probably never even thought of, then advance to more definite, undeniable ones. First consider this, why were we never taught the curvature of the earth? We see the flatness everywhere. Go to the beach, look to the horizon, flat. They tell you it's because of the earth's monstrous size that we can't see any curvature, often using comparisons like a germ on a bowling ball. But what they don't tell you is that the curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference SHOULD in fact have a very noticeable curve. As I'm sure you have or will do now, a Google search provides a reasonably small amount of curvature for a mile, but further investigation provides a diagram not unlike the one below. The second mile will square, and will square every mile thereafter. So, the ground or sea 2 miles away will be 32" downhill from you. At 3 miles, a full six feet of curvature would hide another human.









From Hawaii to the California coast for example, at roughly 2,500 miles, would have a hump of water over 700 miles high. Have you ever seen water rest in a humped form? Have you ever, while looking at a sunset, and the horizon being miles away, thought that the sun were beneath your feet? This is what they are teaching us. The basic physics of water is to find and maintain a flat, level surface. This is common sense. The horizon always appears flat, and at eye level, no matter the altitude. If you rise up from any size ball, the horizon would drop, and you would soon be looking down more and more as you rose in altitude. I'm sure you are familiar with fisheye lenses, if not, take some time and look it up. Most high altitude balloon and rocket launches use this type of lens. I'm short, it will curve any line that's not centered. You will know you are looking through a fish eye lens when the horizon is centered, and way above the center, when it makes the earth curve outward. Horizon in top half of the screen is a sphere, centered, it's flat, bottom half, it's a concave earth. This morphing effect is a telltale sign of a fish eye lens. No one pays attention anymore, because we are so brainwashed from indoctrination, and do not even consider an alternative. This video is shot using a regular camera, and a fisheye camera, I'll let you use this information to figure out which is which.
https://youtu.be...



The go fast rocket launch broke a few records 4 being the highest and fastest amateur rocket ever launched. it was done from the Nevada desert between 8:00 a.m. and 11 AM. At the time I research this, they did not provide a time for the launch as you can see they do now in the description of the video. I feel they have lied about this, there is another video that accompanies it in which they go behind the scenes a little bit explain what happened before and after the launch even showing a GPS navigation system on the dash when they go to retrieve the camera that was on the balloon. Now if you zoom in on the video to the GPS the time is 11:40 in the other video they say they are doing this in the morning and you can clearly see the Sun is a lot higher in the sky than what 7:30 would make it. Why would they wait so long after the launch to retrieve the camera? Shadows would be much longer than those seen in the prelaunch video. I approximated time between 9 and 11 o'clock AM. If we take this information and go to time and date.com we can see that the moon should in fact be over Australia and well below the horizon at the time of the launch.
https://youtu.be...
https://youtu.be...
http://www.timeanddate.com...
http://www.timeanddate.com...

Gyroscopes would not act the way they do or would even be considered reliable on planes if the earth were spinning at 1000 miles per hour. Gyroscope stay consistent with the same axis regardless of its container rotation, defying even the mighty gravity, just as bees so(though in different ways). If the earth were spinning at a thousand miles per hour on rotation 90 degrees every 6 hours, the gyroscope would follow its rotation in reverse. After 6 hours of a gyroscope spinning, it would be at a 90 degree angle from where it started, after 12 hours, it will have rotated a full 180 degrees as the Earth rotates the opposite direction 180 degrees. That's not even taking into account the sun's motion around the galaxy, and it's motion around the universe. The gyroscope should flay wildly in every direction. 670,000,000 miles per hour indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.









































If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.









































The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!
https://youtu.be...





























TheRussian

Con

"The second mile will square, and will square every mile thereafter. So, the ground or sea 2 miles away will be 32" downhill from you. At 3 miles, a full six feet of curvature would hide another human."
Well for a person of average height, the horizon is indeed about 3 miles away. So yes, your above statement matches our observations. Does this not serve to prove the Earth is Round?
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"...would have a hump of water over 700 miles high. Have you ever seen water rest in a humped form?"
If you were looking at the Earth perpendicular to its curvature, then yes the "hump" would see to be 700 miles high. However since your line of sight is tangential to the curve, it doesn't look like there is a giant hump because you're ON the hump. It's like if you're on a large hill, the hill is going to seem taller if you look AT the hill from the base than if you're on the slope of the hill looking UP the hill.

I'm a bit confused about your point about fish eye lenses, could you elaborate on that please?

I feel like my opponent's point about the "go fast rocket" is a bit irrelevant. He says "I research this, they did not provide a time for the launch as you can see they do now in the description of the video. I feel they have lied about this...", and I really don't see how this contributes to the debate.

"If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion"
If the Earth and atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate then yes, this shouldn't be experienced in any way. If the atmosphere was moving SLOWER than the Earth, then yes there would be a difference and we would feel it because we, spinning on the Earth, would be having to resist the friction of the slower atmosphere. However, since we're both going at about the same rate, nothing is felt. It's like if you floating down a river at the river's speed. You don't feel the river pushing against you. However if the river is moving slower than you're trying to swim, then you would feel the resistance of the water.

About gyroscopes. My opponent himself said that the gyroscope stays on the same axis no matter the rotation of the "container", so why would the rotation of the Earth have any impact on the function of a gyroscope? The constant angular momentum of a gyroscope keeps it vertical, having nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth which is why gyroscopes can be used on things like ballistic missiles.

"...the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way...In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map."
Yes, you're absolutely right. These are basic concepts of non-Euclidean geometry and do nothing to prove that the Earth is flat. Read the link provided if you'd like to learn some more, but essentially, even though it may seem like planes take a very strange, curved route, they're actually taking pretty much the shortest possible route, as the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry tell us. The issue essentially is that a route that a plane takes on a sphere can't easily be represented on a 2D map but indeed in reality, as my opponent showed, the routes are actually straight/shortest possible. This concept could be applied to a basketball or any sphere, so it's not specific to the Earth and so I don't see how it proves that the Earth is flat because by that logic, every sphere is in reality flat (which it clearly isn't).
http://www.science4all.org...

Now about my opponent's point about the "Midnight Sun". He mentions that during the summer solstice (June 20-22), the Sun can be seen in the Arctic for very long periods of time and says this if proof that the earth is flat. This is not at all true considering that during the summer solstice, the Northern pole is "pointed towards" the Sun for several days. (Look at the link to see a diagram of this, it will help you understand the idea here). This means that even though the Earth is rotating on its axis, there are parts of the Earth where the Sun continues to shine non-stop for the duration of the solstice. Once again, there is clearly an explanation for this besides the Earth being flat.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu...

Now I have some questions for my opponent about his theory of a flat Earth.

1. Where are the edges of our flat Earth?
2. What happens if I dig down very deep? Will I fall through into space?
3. How does the flat Earth theory account for gravity? Gravity is probably the single largest proof we have that the Earth, along with virtually all celestial objects, is spherical.
4. Along with a flat Earth, does my opponent suggest a geocentric universe rather than a heliocentric model? In other words, does the Sun revolve around the Earth?
5. Does my opponent suggest that all celestial objects are flat? If so, then why is the moon clearly spherical? If not, then why is it just the Earth that's flat?

As a whole, I feel that my opponent's main points arise from simple misunderstandings and I feel that he/she has not fulfilled his/her BoP.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Pro

The comparison was just to get everyone on the same page as to how much curvature there should be. But there is none. The horizon stays at eye level no matter how high you go, and it's always flat. Since you are always at the top of the ball from your perspective, everything should lean away from you more and more with distance, especially if you ride in altitude, but as you see from the video above, this does not happen.

You have not addressed the fact that on a ball, water would defy its own natural physics which is to remain flat and level. No experiment or example can show you that water is resting in a humped form or anything other than level. Secondly does it seem like you are standing on a hill at all times?

My point about fisheye lenses is that 90% of the video and photos from official sources are using this lens whuch curves The Horizon. If you were to use a regular lens on a camera you would see that at any altitude Horizon remains flat and at eye level.

My point about the rocket launch is this. Why do we see the moon in this video, when it should be on the opposite side of the planet? Notice how far away it is. It is on the other side of the PLANE.

So friction causes the entire atmosphere to spin along with the earth? So that smoke rises in a calm day straight up? At what altitude does the friction of the earth stop affecting it's surroundings? Shouldn't the air then move faster as you gain altitude? Or slower, because it is further away from the source of the friction? If you walk against the earth's spin, or swim against the current, or travel forward on a moving bus, do you not feel the resistance?

The gyroscope stays at the same axis, allowing pilots to tell which way is up during a roll for example. Why doesn't the same hold true when the earth rolls? Honestly, I didn't think this one needed further explanation.

The example in the article you provide shows a trip from the UK to the US, being in the northern hemisphere, With the arch northwards representing The shortest path, you can trace the pass out on a globe and see that it is the shortest path . As my example is a path betwee two points on the bottom of the globe, if you trace a path between those two points that Arch would not go northwards, but Southward. It certainly would not take you into the northern hemisphere.

The Midnight Sun can be seen as far south as Alaska, as low as the 65th parallel the diagram you provided does not explain how this can happen other than at the poles on the globe .

Quick questions and answers
1. Antarctica is the ice ring that goes around our planet think of it as the crust on the pizza holding everything in. (pizza planet)There may not be an edge, as Antarctica is off-limits to anyone doing any exploring on their own, sure you can take a guided tour and whatnot, but if you tried to go there and explore on your own you'll be met with military force. No one has ever circumnavigated the globe from north to south.
2. The most anyone's ever dug is around 6 miles deep by then it was too hot and Equipment failure resulted. So I'm not sure, hell?
3. Gravity is only a theory, things can be better explained using buoyancy and density and weight, things of high-density sink to a level below things of low-density and vice versa. Who ever thought that things that go around us in the sky have anything to do with the ground we stand on had to be completely and utterly delusional, does the cue ball look at the other balls and say well the balls are spheres then the table must be a sphere. Does the baby look at the mobile spinning around his head and say well the little bears up in the sky are stuffed animals so what I'm sleeping on must be a stuffed animal. It is this thinking that has got me to believe that everybody has lost their mind. Blindly accepting what astronomers and scientists claim using only theoretical math equations.
4. Yes the Flat Earth theory is entirely geocentric, space is a myth, the sun is about 32 miles in diameter and about three thousand miles away. The stars, and planets are but lights in the sky that go around above us in the firmament.
5. As stated before, we have absolutely no reason to assume that objects in the sky are relative to the ground beneath your feet.

Questions for you
1. If gravity pulls everything to the center of the earth proportional to its mass, how does an inner layer of liquid exist?
2. Why don't we see shooting stars rise up from the horizon?
3. How does a pressurized ball spinning at 1000 miles per hour sitting next to a vacuum and still hold its atmosphere?
4. If gravity is uniform on the earth, and that force is countering centripital force from the earth's spin, the centripital force is greatest at the equator, why don't we weigh more as we approach the poles?
5. If the force of gravity decreases with distance, why don't we weigh less on a plane?
6. Why haven't they commercialized trips to the moon over 50 years after the first virtually flawless trip?
7. Some comets come back to the sun every hundred years or more, If the sun is flying through space at preposterous speeds, how does the comet find it's way back to the same sun?
8. If the Earth has a wobble, why doesn't the polaris sway from it's position in the sky?
9. If the sun prevents us from seeing the stars on that side of us, and we are on a different side of it every six months, why don't we see different constellations?
TheRussian

Con

"But there is none"
But...there is. I have presented a source that clearly says: "For an observer on the ground with eye level at h = 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m), the horizon is at a distance of 2.9 miles (4.7 km)."

"You have not addressed the fact that on a ball, water would defy its own natural physics which is to remain flat and level."
My opponent seems to ignore the works of gravity. Ok, let's imagine we have a downward sloping hill that is flat and at the bottom, we have a curvy, uneven basin. Will the water try to stay "flat and level" on the hill? Of course not. Water doesn't "try to stay" on a flat and level surface, water simply follows gravity just like all other things.

"But there is none. The horizon stays at eye level no matter how high you go, and it's always flat."
Here is a video I found and I think at about 2:36, there is a noticeable curve in the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com...

"My point about fisheye lenses is that 90% of the video and photos from official sources are using this lens whuch curves The Horizon. If you were to use a regular lens on a camera you would see that at any altitude Horizon remains flat and at eye level."
I understand, but provide the above link as a counter.

"Why do we see the moon in this video, when it should be on the opposite side of the planet? Notice how far away it is. It is on the other side of the PLANE."
I don't see why that would be true. If the video was taken at around 7 AM, then it is quite possible that the moon is still visible at such high altitudes. Don't forget that while the moon moves, it is the rotation of the Earth that causes it to "appear and disappear", not the movement of the moon itself.

"So that smoke rises in a calm day straight up? At what altitude does the friction of the earth stop affecting it's surroundings? Shouldn't the air then move faster as you gain altitude? Or slower, because it is further away from the source of the friction?"
The friction never "stops affecting its surroundings". The Earth has been spinning with this atmosphere for so long that the entire atmosphere is in motion. And indeed, the air generally moves faster at higher altitudes because it is not impeded by friction with the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The gyroscope stays at the same axis, allowing pilots to tell which way is up during a roll for example. Why doesn't the same hold true when the earth rolls?"
What evidence has my opponent presented that the gyroscope doesn't stay on the same axis during a "roll" of the Earth?

"The example in the article you provide shows a trip from the UK to the US, being in the northern hemisphere, With the arch northwards...As my example is a path between two points on the bottom of the globe, if you trace a path between those two points that Arch would not go northwards, but Southward. It certainly would not take you into the northern hemisphere."
I don't see how this is a counter argument. I never suggested that all flight paths would go into the Northern Hemisphere. They don't all "arc up", some can "arc down" depending on the destination. My point is simply that as a result of the discrepancy between a 3D sphere and a 2D map, the paths on a 3D sphere may look redundant when they are indeed the shortest path possible.

"The Midnight Sun can be seen as far south as Alaska, as low as the 65th parallel the diagram you provided does not explain how this can happen other than at the poles on the globe ."
The Earth has an average tilt of 23.5 degrees. If we subtract this from 90 degrees (90 parallels in the Northern hemisphere), then we get 90-23.5=66.5. So just by this, we could say that the Midnight Sun could be visible down the the 66th parallel. If we also consider the slight wobble of the Earth, it is not unreasonable to say that this phenomenon could be visible just another degree down, at the 65th parallel.

"Quick questions and answers"
1. But people have circumnavigated the globe from East to West. Does this not disprove the Flat Earth theory in and of itself? Also, I have just found information that someone has indeed circumnavigated the globe North to South.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...
Does this not also disprove the Flat Earth Theory?
2. Yes it was very hot, and the round-Earth model presents an explanation for this phenomenon. Flat Earth theory doesn't.
3. Every phenomenon my opponent mentioned "buoyancy, density and weight of things" result from gravity. I ask my opponent for evidence against the existence of a force called gravity. What is it then, that "pulls" a ball down when you drop it?
4. Evidence please.
5. My opponent has totally dodged my question on this one. I ask again, are all celestial objects flat? If yes, then why do we clearly see the moon to be round? If not, why is it just the Earth that's flat? I ask for responses to all of the above questions, and will push this even further. If the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, the Sun either revolves in the plane of the Earth, or perpendicular to the plane. If the Sun was revolving IN THE SAME PLANE as the flat Earth, then we would have constant daylight, however if it revolved perpendicular, then there would be periods where the entire Earth is dark, which is clearly not true either.

Answers for my opponent:
1. Why wouldn't an inner layer of liquid exist if the temperature and pressure are clearly high enough for it.
2. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, elaborate please.
3. Gravity. Oh, and this is a fantastic point. Since my opponent rejects gravity, I'd like to hear his explanation for the Earth keeping its atmosphere in a vacuum.
4. Who said our weight doesn't decrease? Evidence please.
5. We do, we weigh less at higher altitudes.
6. Because there's very little demand for this service.
7. Because gravity makes it so that the comets follow specific routes relative to their surrounding celestial bodies.
8. Please present a source that it doesn't.
9. We do observe different constellations at different times of the year. http://www.windows2universe.org...

I would like to say that my opponent questionnaire has been catastrophic for his own case, particularly points 3, 5 and 9. I would like to hear the explanations for these based on a gravity-less, Flat Earth theory.

At this point, while my opponent has pushed some main points, I do not think he has managed to fulfill his sole BoP of providing sufficient evidence that the Earth is flat. Once again, he spends more time disproving the round Earth hypothesis rather than actually proving the flat Earth hypothesis. The last questionnaire is particularly problematic for his case as a flat Earth, with no gravity, struggles to provide reasonable explanations for the phenomena we observe.

I will also ask, out of curiosity, what would be the point of such a conspiracy?
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Pro

I may have missed the source you are referring to. Nevertheless, the horizon should, for the average human, be 3 miles away. There are several pictures and video that show cities, landmarks, etc. being further than what should be visible. Just do a no curvature search of images and videos on Google and YouTube.


Water has a natural physics of finding and maintaining a level surface at its lowest possible point. At no point has water ever rested in a hump. Water flowing down a hill is not at rest. I mean at some point in the debate the almighty catch-all gravity would be brought up. And though I do believe things can be better explained using density and buoyancy comma no experiment has shown that objects are attracted to other objects by their sheer mass. Gravity is just a theory, and outdated one at that. Gravity can be disproven in several ways, I will give a short example. Gravity forces everything to the center of The earth proportional to its mass, then how can we have a liquid inner layer holding up trillions of tons of solid rock and mountain where as The force is so much stronger being closer to the center. What size mass does gravity start to attract things? Planet size? Most planets have moons, why don't moons have natural satellites, or mini-moons?

The video showing the curvature was shot using a fisheye lens. You can pause the video in the first few seconds and see this. At :02 The boards of the deck show that the straight lines are going to all be curved. So it seems you didn't understand. ;) empirical evidence of a flat earth.

As stated in round 2 the time they did the launch was well after 7 As you claim, and well after 7:30 as they claim. I ask again why would they wait so long after the launch to retrieve the camera? I ask voters to review round 2 arguments again if they are as confused as my opponent, and you will see the the bop has not been rebutted. The moon does go around a circle above our heads, in near unison with the stars.

My question was "At what altitude does the friction of the earth stop affecting it's surroundings?" your answer is "The friction never "stops affecting its surroundings"" does this stop at the troposphere? When the Astro-nots escaped the atmosphere, were they free of this "friction" or were they being flung around the atmosphere at over the speed of sound? If so, why couldn't they save us some fuel tax money and wait form the moon, or any planet to zoom by on it's journey around the sun?

Well you can look at a gyroscope and see that it doesn't fling around wildly in place as it would if the earth were spinning, orbiting around the sun, that is orbiting around the galaxy, that is orbiting around the universe. But for now we'll just take the earth's spin, this guy bought a good gyro, and does the math to see if any spin can be observed.
https://youtu.be...

You can get a globe (3d map) and see that you do not go through north America on a straight path from SOUTH America to Australia.

1.People circumnavigating the globe are only going around the center of the earth in a wide circle which is magnetic north. With this level of deception, they can say anyone did anything. Admiral Byrd is The only person who has been past Antarctica, and he describes more land "The size of the United States with untouched resources"
2. The global explanation of it is a huge layer of molten silicon. Wouldn't the mountains surely sink in this ocean of lava? The bible has an explanation for this.
3. I ask you, what evidence do you have that gravity exists? Can we observe it on a measurable scale? Can you show me empirical evidence that the sheer mass of an object can cause an attraction, or make things orbit around it? Density is what causes the ball to sink, the air is less dense than the ball, causing it to sink to a level of equal or greater density. Again, gravity has never been proven. Seeing things go up or down has nothing to do with the sheer mass of the earth, or it's "core" or anything pushing or pulling in anything.
4. Evidence
crespicular rays




6. I am only trying to break the relationship everyone sees between lights in the sky and the terra firma we stand in. They are round yes, but not necessarily spheres. You can draw a circle on paper, it's round, but it's not spherical. The sun follows the law of perspective. It lights locally.

1. wouldn't a large layer of molten silica absorb a small layer of solid rock and Mountain?
2. if I see a shooting star over head according to the globe Theory it should be at someone's Horizon coming up. why don't we ever see them Rise Up from the horizon?
3. gravity is only a theory that is easily disproved vacuums pick up the lightest objects first which means our atmosphere should have been gone long ago. there is probably a firmament Kama which is backed by the Bible and Nicholas Tesla to name a few.
4. So, if I'm standing on the equator at the widest point of the alleged globe, spinning at 1000 mph, my weight will be 175lbs, if I then fly to either north or South poles (not actually allowed but lets wave that for now) at the narrowest point of the alleged Globe,the rotation of the earth would be reduced to around 150 mph, The gravitational pull if existent would have to be so great that my weight would be around 7000lbs and I would be squashed like a bug.
5.Evidence please.
6. Virgin has had 800 investors waiting to be the first amateurs in space 4 quite a few years now, with some demanding a refund knowing that it is impossible
7. again with the magic gravity dust, since gravity is relative to everything in the universe with this suppose a specific orbit not be affected by other celestial objects that it probably goes near, other planets for example?
8.
9. unseen motion the same constellations you're around when I pay attention

As you can see most of these anomalies have to be explained using theoretical gravity. But the flat earth theory is based on real reproducible observation, using occams razor, most of the spherical earth theory is based on assumptions, making flat earth more likely. But empirical evidence(videos of flat, eye level horizons at any altitude) shows a flat earth.

Reasons, treason, creating an atheistic world by saying we are insignificant evolution was birthed from spherical earth. Etc.
TheRussian

Con

My opponent's point about Pikes Peak:
My source indicates that at a distance of about 3 miles, the horizon can conceal an object about 6 feet tall. Pikes Peak is over 14,000 feet tall, so it is logical that it can be seen from faraway. This is actually an interesting point, if my opponent suggests a flat Earth, does that mean that I should be able to see just about anything I want if I just get really good binoculars?

" Gravity is just a theory, and outdated one at that. Gravity can be disproven in several ways...then how can we have a liquid inner layer holding up trillions of tons of solid rock and mountain where as The force is so much stronger being closer to the center."
I genuinely don't understand why we wouldn't when the temperature (as a result of pressure as a result of gravity) is clearly high enough. I ask my opponent to read the following link about gravity. There are formulas about it that have been shown to work consistently and I haven't seen any real evidence that disprove gravity. It is a theory that WORKS, and we use it all the time for calculations that yield results.
http://thehappyscientist.com...

"Water has a natural physics of finding and maintaining a level surface at its lowest possible point."
Water itself does not have a "natural physics" of "finding a level surface". Water is not an animate object, it acts according to natural laws such as GRAVITY. In space, there is no up or down, low or high. These can only exist relative to an object. It should be noted that the water of the oceans, obviously, does reside in areas that are lower relative to dry land. However water itself does not form a "hump". We have something called "sea level", which means that the water on the Earth isn't really "higher" on any one point. (This is not completely true as "sea level" is higher near the equator due GRAVITY and the spin of the Earth). In fact, I'd like to see my opponent explain this phenomenon with the Flat Earth Theory.
http://www.psmsl.org...

"What size mass does gravity start to attract things?...Most planets have moons, why don't moons have natural satellites, or mini-moons?"
All things that have mass have a gravitational pull. Moons don't have natural satellites of their own because larger objects (such as the planet) have a gravitational pull much stronger than the moon and so objects end up orbiting the larger object (planet).

"I ask again why would they wait so long after the launch to retrieve the camera?"
Why does it matter?

"The moon does go around a circle above our heads, in near unison with the stars."
I think my opponent forgets that the reason we see the moon "move" at night is not due to the motion of the moon itself, but rather to the spin of the Earth. It takes the moon an entire month to move all the way around the Earth.

"When the Astro-nots escaped the atmosphere, were they free of this "friction"... If so, why couldn't they save us some fuel tax money and wait form the moon, or any planet to zoom by on it's journey around the sun?"
Well yes, objects that escape the atmosphere are free of its friction. I don't understand what my opponent means with the second sentence/question and request that he/she is more clear in general.

1. "People circumnavigating the globe are only going around the center of the earth in a wide circle which is magnetic north. With this level of deception, they can say anyone did anything."
What level of deception? I provided a source that clearly says that the globe was circumnavigated North so South. I don't understand how this is disputable.

2. "Wouldn't the mountains surely sink in this ocean of lava?"
I requested that my opponent provide an explanation for the phenomena of molten rock under the surface of the Earth using the Flat Earth model and he failed to do so. And no, we clearly see that mountains don't "sink" in this "ocean of lava.

3. "Density is what causes the ball to sink"
I ask my opponent to explain in the last Round, without referring to gravity, how the density of an object causes it to sink. I have a piece of iron and I throw it in the pool. The iron is more dense than the water, so it sinks. I ask my opponent to explain this without reference to gravity. And yes, as I mentioned above, gravity is a rather strong "theory" with experimental confirmation. We have not a single observation that defies the idea of gravity, so why would you deny gravity itself?

4. Crepuscular Rays
With a bit of research (googling it and hitting the first link) one can find that "Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance)."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The picture with the sun appearing to be smaller doesn't prove much because in the first of the two images, you can't really tell where the boundaries of the Sun are because of how it's shining. If I asked my opponent to show where the boundaries are (where the Sun ends and where just its rays begin), he wouldn't be able to do so with accuracy and neither would I.

On the last image...it doesn't matter what might "make more sense" to you, math is absolute.

5. (This point is totally dropped, please read it in last Round).

6. "They are round yes, but not necessarily spheres. You can draw a circle on paper, it's round, but it's not spherical."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my opponent in this statement admitted that celestial objects are indeed round, not flat? And if so I ask, why is the Earth, alone, flat?

1. "wouldn't a large layer of molten silica absorb a small layer of solid rock and Mountain?"
As we see, no, it wouldn't.

2. "if I see a shooting star over head according to the globe Theory it should be at someone's Horizon coming up. why don't we ever see them Rise Up from the horizon?"
What is your evidence that we don't?

3. "vacuums pick up the lightest objects first which means our atmosphere should have been gone long ago."
Well yes, it takes less force to move a smaller object so they would move first. I don't see how this is related to the atmosphere. Just because lighter objects require less force to move doesn't mean the gravity of the Earth isn't strong enough to hold the atmosphere.

4. "The gravitational pull if existent would have to be so great that my weight would be around 7000lbs and I would be squashed like a bug."
I request actual calculations and evidence for this claim.

5. http://www.nytimes.com...

6. "Virgin has had 800 investors waiting to be the first amateurs in space 4 quite a few years now, with some demanding a refund knowing that it is impossible"
Could my opponent please provide a source so I could read more on this matter?

7. "again with the magic gravity dust, since gravity is relative to everything in the universe with this suppose a specific orbit not be affected by other celestial objects that it probably goes near, other planets for example?"
The sentence does not make sense. I, again, ask my opponent to be more clear. What are you asking?

8. Marvelous. Well if we consider Polaris to be the Northern Star, shouldn't it be above the North pole, which is on the axis of rotation...meaning that it shouldn't move.

9. "unseen motion the same constellations you're around when I pay attention"
Another sentence that doesn't make sense.

Essentially the debate boils down the existence of gravity. While my opponent has now several times damaged his own case (such as that last image with Polaris, doesn't that picture clearly show the spin of the Earth?), he has failed to show that the Earth is flat. The arguments of a Flat-Earther are a conglomeration of ignorance to basic concepts of physics as well as the idea that we, with our eyes, can't see the curvature.
Debate Round No. 4
Edlvsjd

Pro

Pikes peak is visible, in it's entirety, from sea level at Ft Collins, which is 140 miles away. If we use this information and refer to our chart above, we can see that at 140 miles we get roughly 3 miles of curvature, which translates to about 16,000 ft. So according to the globular earth theory, anything lower than this should not be visible. Also notice how it is nearly the same color as the sky above it, this is due to smog, fog, heat, dust, or any combination of particles in the air that blocks light from coming through altogether. It is due to these (law of perspective and atmosphere) that we cannot see forever. Binoculars will help overcome the law of perspective to a degree, but not the atmosphere without some thermal imaging to help, to a degree.
Conclusion voters, does it seem like most, if not all of this mountain is hidden over the horizon? Or does it just shrink, due to the law of perspective? This is obvious, empirical evidence. So, using the calculations provided, we can safely conclude that we are seeing much farther than we should, and that the earth is either flat, or much larger that we are told.

My opponent claims that pressure, due to gravity, is pushing (or is it pulling out) the top layer of earth outwards, as It is holding the world's oceans, people, ATMOSPHERE, tightly to it's surface, while the moon is spinning around it. Gravity is not reproduceable on a small scale. Water cannot stick to a ball against centrifugal force. Gravity was invented, not discovered, to make the spherical earth theory work, they are accurate on paper, but this is because some of the greatest freemason (or freemason persuaded) minds reversed the math to make it work. Gravity is constant, applied equally to everything proportional to it's mass, then the tennis ball should hold water to it's surface when spun, but it obviously doesn't, this should raise a red flag in and of itself. Gravity is the equivalent to religion's God, nobody can prove it actually exists, so we just have to take the preachers word for it.
From Universe today:

"...physicists think about gravity all the time. To them, gravity is one of the mysteries to be solved in order to get a complete understanding of how the Universe works.

So, what is gravity and where does it come from?

To be honest, we’re not entirely sure."

Com drops his argument after I proved his video was using a fisheye lens, as this is the only proof of curvature that con offers and it is successfully rebutted, then dropped, and no new evidence may be presented in round 5, we must conclude that there are no videos or photos of the Earth's curvature that exists which aren't faked, if boats go over the horizon at 3 miles, and a balloon can reach upwards of 100,000 feet, then we should be able to see some curvature, and Horizon should drop with altitude.
Conclusion: empirical evidence shows that the Earth is flat.

"because larger objects (such as the planet) have a gravitational pull much stronger than the moon and so objects end up orbiting the larger object"
Then our moon should not be orbiting us, but the sun. The same scenario could be reproduced with distances and sizes relatively scaleable to the earth/sun.

It matters because the moon's location should be nearly opposite Nevada on a globe, yet we see it well above the horizon, again, I hope the voters understand the reasoning behind this argument, and that the moon shouldn't be so small, considering it hasn't gone relatively far away. Con has dodged this argument since it was brought up, but it's not that complicated to understand, and it is proof that the earth is not a ball.

" I don't understand what my opponent means with the second sentence/question and request that he/she is more clear in general." since the moon orbits the earth, and the moon is following it, if a craft is free of this friction, they should be able to come to a stop (lose all of it's velocity), predict the moon's trajectory, and wait for the moon or other destination which is travelling around the sun at 18 mps to come to them.

Con drops the gyroscope argument as well. This is empirical evidence that the earth does not spin, making gravity nonexistent, and with it, the globe.

Con drops the flight paths argument after I brought up the precious globe he defends. As common sense will tell anyone who paid attention, we should not make stops in the nothern hemisphere on such a southerly flight, these points, should be closer together on a globe, not far enough away to cause any northerly paths. As this flight path can easily be explained in a flat earth, it is proof that the earth is not a globe.

1. What level of deception? Seriously? They fabricated pictures of the earth, and put it in our heads. This is the highest level of deception. I consider this to be THE Great Deception mentioned in the bible. I can't definitely prove that they didn't but I see that they were all royalty or prominent members of society and more than likely freemason. I will point out that they are unsure where the south pole is actually located, so how do they know the just didn't get turned around?
2. A huge cavern of liquid fire commonly known as hell
3. Newtonian laws state that an object that orbits another is relative to it's distance from the objects being orbited. Meaning that if the object's distance is increased, it's gravitational force should decrease, and vice versa. So elliptical orbits, which are common thoughout the universe, should be breaking these "laws". What force pulls the planet back out to it's furthest point in it's orbit? Scientists claim it's velocity and centripital force, but as gravity is growing, this velocity should also be growing to counter it. This will lead to eventual collision of the objects.
4. I too googled this and found this seemingly reasonable explanation. There are obvious differences though. 1. Train tracks start at the observer's feet and are moving away. When you see this in the distance, you can see it from a side view, so you are seeing the actual angles, not receding parallel lines. 2. You can sometimes see rays going backwards in the verticle scale, as the sun is supposedly 93 Brazillian miles away, this would be impossible. please from now on, don't just gobble up whatever round earth science tells you regardless of how silly it sounds, or what your eyes are clearly seeing. Realize they have been doing this for a long time.

You may not can see the boundaries because of the cognitive dissonance, but I'm sure everyone else can, but it's ok, I want you to see it too, so let's apply a flare filter.
https://youtu.be...

So you can see, with this math, that is absolute, that the sun is not 93 Brazilian miles away, and it circles above our heads.
5. Not intentionally. The weight differences are insignificant and I suspect, non-existent
6.The earth is the only physical terra firma we can prove with empirical evidence. Pictures from nasa are cgi as I showed in the debate I provided at the beginning of round 2. There is no reason we should think that lights in the sky are other places you can go or even touch. God made the earth, and the firmament shows his handi-work. Again, earth is a flat, round, disc, not a globe. See the comments section for a link on why the moon is not a sphere.(people on one side of the globe do not see more of it than people looking at it from a different angle on the opposite side of the globe.)

I was going to edit out some of the above to make room for the last questions, but I feel it might take away from the proof, that is my burden, that I feel my opponent all but ignores, drops, or (pretends not to?) doesn't understand. The most importantly being the empirical evidences with unaided high altitude shots, gyroscopes, being able to see further distances than allowed, etc. These are undeniable. I also would like to add that it was an engineer/physics teacher that first turned me on to the flat earth theory. His name is Brian mullin and you can find him on YouTube.
TheRussian

Con

There are some faults in my opponent's last Round that I wanted to address, however if the voter deems it unfair that I do so, feel free to skip this part and go to the "Conclusions" section of my final argument.

"from sea level at Ft Collins"
Fort Collins actually isn't at sea level.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"If we use this information and refer to our chart above, we can see that at 140 miles we get roughly 3 miles of curvature, which translates to about 16,000 ft."
Well instead of just estimating, why don't we actually use the formula provided?
X=3959-(3959*(COS(SIN(140/3959))))=2.474 miles
2.474 miles=13,062 feet
Pikes Peak is 14,144 feet tall. As we can see, there is a significant 1,000 foot difference, which can be seen as the small sliver above the horizon in the photo my opponent provided in Round 4.

"Gravity is not reproduceable on a small scale. Water cannot stick to a ball against centrifugal force. Gravity was invented, not discovered, to make the spherical earth theory work"
Centrifugal force is not really applicable to the relationship between Earth and the atmosphere because it would be miniscule (molecules of atmosphere aren't really "attached" to the Earth). How can you say that gravity was invented? I have shown several examples (which I will repeat at the end of this Round) that prove gravity.

"then the tennis ball should hold water to it's surface when spun, but it obviously doesn't, this should raise a red flag in and of itself."
Well no, the gravity of a tennis ball is much smaller because of its mass, and is easily overcome by the force of gravity of the Earth combined with the centrifugal force.

"Then our moon should not be orbiting us, but the sun."
Well there are many objects that are roughly the size of the moon that orbit the Sun, but don't forget that the distance between the Moon and Sun is much larger than between the Moon and Earth (about 460 times larger).

"It matters because the moon's location should be nearly opposite Nevada on a globe, yet we see it well above the horizon"
In the video, it appeared that the moon was full (or very close to it). During the full moon phase, the moon should overhead at midnight. Assuming a perfectly spherical Earth (it's not) and a perfectly spherical moon orbit (it's not), the moon should drop below the horizon after 6 hours. The video was taken at 7 am and the rocket went to a very high altitude, so it's pretty logical that the moon is still visible.
http://ps.uci.edu...

"if a craft is free of this friction, they should be able to come to a stop (lose all of it's velocity)"
No, they can't come to a stop because of Earth's gravitational pull (which would cause them to accelerate towards Earth).

"wait for the moon or other destination which is travelling around the sun at 18 mps to come to them."
The moon takes a full month to revolve around the Earth remember? Too long to just sit there and waste fuel to wait.

"This is empirical evidence that the earth does not spin, making gravity nonexistent"
While I will address this "empirical evidence" later, I would like to note that the Earth's spin has nothing to do with gravity.

Conclusions:
Unfortunately I didn't have enough characters to address all of my opponent's arguments in every single Round, but here in the conclusion I would like to summarize what has been shown throughout the debate.

First of all, I'd like to say that to make the debate easier, I went along with the idea that all of the pictures from space are fake, made by NASA in order to....I don't really know, my opponent's explanation for the reason behind this conspiracy seemed pretty vague. It should be noted that my opponent didn't ever really provide any evidence for this conspiracy at any point throughout the debate.

Next, I emphasize that my opponent's arguments really boiled down to either misunderstandings of physics (such as his argument having to do with the atmosphere and the "Midnight Sun") or claims that we simply can't see the curvature, therefore it doesn't exist. While he is correct in that we can't really see it, I feel that there are far too many other proofs for a round Earth that I have made.

1) Gravity- I provided a source that confirms that as altitude increases (distance from center of the Earth), the weight of an object/person decreases. Also, I provided another source that mentions the use of calculations having to do with gravity to solve real world problems, which also confirms gravity. My opponent never effectively refuted either claim and I reassert that gravity does indeed exists and proves a globular Earth.

2) Circumnavigation- We all know that Magellan circumnavigated the globe East to West, but then I also provided a source that confirms that a person circumnavigated the globe North to South. This also serves to prove that the Earth is round.

3) Spin of Earth- My opponent himself brought up the point about constellations and I showed a source that they change throughout the year. Does this not prove a spinning, spherical Earth? He even showed a picture where all of the stars moved except Polaris, which further enforces the point that the Earth rotates about an axis on which North points towards Polaris.

I'd also like to note that my opponent brought religious views into the debate several times, which are not accepted by everyone and cannot be used as any kind of proof for a flat Earth.

I'd also like to point out that my opponent avoided several key questions throughout the debate such as: "Does my opponent suggest that all celestial objects are flat? If so, then why is the moon clearly spherical? If not, then why is it just the Earth that's flat?" and "If the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, the Sun either revolves in the plane of the Earth, or perpendicular to the plane. If the Sun was revolving IN THE SAME PLANE as the flat Earth, then we would have constant daylight, however if it revolved perpendicular, then there would be periods where the entire Earth is dark, which is clearly not true either."

These questions would be key in the Flat-Earth explanation of reality, but he either purposely chose to avoid them or missed the question....3 times in a row? Point being, these questions seem to be virtually impossible to plausibly answer with the Flat Earth theory in a way that would match our observations.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that the Round-Earth Theory is a far more supported hypothesis than the Flat-Earth theory, largely due to the Theory of Gravity without which our world makes absolutely no sense.

I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by desade 8 months ago
desade
A simple thought experiment for the instigator. Imagine space with nothing in it, an infinite nothingness. Now place a cube, say 1 meter a side filled with water in that nothingness. There is no up, down or otherwise. There's no reference point. Now imagine a small steel ball appearing within the cube. What does it do? It's denser than the water so according to your argument it must attain (of it's own accord ) some 'natural order', but in this case I'm sure you'll agree, nothing will happen. Ok, Let's, at time point 'A' give this scenario a divine co-ordination. what now? does the ball fall relative to the divine coordination? If so, what intrinsically changes? What new force after time 'A' acts upon the steel ball causing it to move. There must be something new acting on the ball as all other variables remain the same. 'Down-ness' though is not a force, merely a relative coordination.
Just because you do not understand a thing does not mean to say it can't exist. I don't understand economics but we live in a society that evidently abides by certain economic models. Before the discovery of the Higgs boson we could only theorise as to what gave matter mass. Before we understood what bacteria were or could observe them did that mean they weren't there causing infection, helping our digestion, laying dormant under ice for millennia? Because we haven't observed a thing or do not understand a thing does not preclude it's existence. I would suggest it is either extreme arrogance or fear of the unknown to suggest that just because it doesn't make sense to you that the consensus of falsifiable evidence is wrong. If you don't believe in gravity what magic force keeps the sun and moon on a circular course 32 miles above your flat earth instead of shooting off on a straight trajectory. Gravity maybe hard to conceptualise abstractly but to invoke something even less evidence based and fantastical is folly!!
Posted by ajg897 8 months ago
ajg897
The pro side fails to fully convince me because of the lack of valid rebuttals, and he relies on external links to make argumemts for him. The most absurd claim he made was that the word of scientists and space explorers are all the result of a lie. I ask this question, and I frown upon the con for not addressing this, what motivations would NASA have to lie about the shape of the Earth, how would the Earth's magnetic field exit, and using notion of zero gravity and buoyancy being responsible for things staying on Earth; but I ask? What central point would the Earth essentially 'stick together' with? And how can you also explain the formation of Earth, and most notably the pro's absolute greatest fail was addressing the existance of circular interstellar objects like planets and other suns, simply deducing other stars as 'points of light' is just a moronic statement not even worth being called an argumemt. All in all, the pro failed to meet his BoP and maybe he is the brainwashed one.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Also this begs the question, something I just thought of, since the Earth's gravity weakens to 1\4th at 6,000km and the Moon is 384,400 km away. This means that the Earth would be approximately 64 times weaker than 1\4th of its gravity. Basically no pull. Meaning the Centrifugal force of the Moon spinning around the Earth would cause it you fly away very fast. Even by some miracle the Earth had just enough to barely pull the Moon against all the force from so far away meaning its Gravity should be a lot stronger on Earth but by some way it worked out. How the heck does the Moon also pull the Earth? I mean you have something 4 times less than the Earth, meaning MUCH weaker Gravity, so how does it manage to pull our oceans?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Stonehe4rt
I think the basic about the Gyroscope theory is this: Go into it, and start it. Wanna know what happens? It flings you to the outside wall. And I know that "Gravity" holds us down. But remember Gravity is the WEAKEST force (if it exist) hence it would succumb to Centrifugal Force. Second Gravity weakens the farther something is, GREATLY, such as something at 6000km is already feeling 1\4 of the Earth's Pull. However with Centrifugal force it works just the opposite. Say you have a rock at the end of a rope, is it harder to spin with it farther out, or closer in. The answer is farther out. So we have Gravity being weaker the farther you are and Centrifugal Force being stronger, hence all air in the Atmosphere should be flying out into the vacuum of space that it naturally wants to be sucked into anyways. Hence you have three forces pull the air in the atmosphere that feels 1\4 of the Earth's Gravity which is the weakest force in all existence vs The Moon's pull, Centrifugal Force, and the fact that Air wants to take up all space around it, hence naturally pulling away into space. By this we can see that either the Earth is not a Globe, or everything about Forces is wrong.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
On the gyroscope argument: To be completely honest, I don't understand the physics of gyroscopes well enough to mount a significant argument. I was planning to investigate that this weekend to see where my (or your) error is. Let's come back to this in several days.
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
If the moon is 240,000 miles away, another 2,000-3,000 shouldn't show much shrinkage, similar to my sun argument above.
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
While we're at it did you concede to the gyroscope argument?
Posted by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
No, I'm referring to the video's depiction of the moon, and how big it is from our perspective, it has shrunk 400x in the video.
No votes have been placed for this debate.