The Instigator
Youngastronomer
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Earth is not flat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
68days00hours52minutes38seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 106009
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (1)

 

Youngastronomer

Pro

This person actually won me over in a debate about Earth's true shape. However, I have done further research and still know that Earth is round and not flat. There are several different reasons for this and show Earth to not be flat.

So if he does not mind, we may as well have a 3rd debate on Earth's shape.

Rules are the same as the last 2 debates.
1st round) Acceptance
2nd round) Opinions
3rd round) Rebuttals
4th round) Defence
Edlvsjd

Con

Since my opponent is convinced, even after researching, I'll let him prove his case. The burden of proof is on him to show conclusive evidence of either curvature or axial or orbital rotation, preferably both. The earth (water) has proved to be flat and motionless in every demonstrable circumstance that I have tested. Good luck to my opponent, and I am glad he has continued his research and is continuing this discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
Youngastronomer

Pro

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting a third debate on the Earth's shape.

Since we'll start on water, which isn't always flat first of all. Water changes shape based on the object it is on, if you pour it into a wine glass for example, it does not become flat until you stop pouring it and eventually the top becomes flat.

But it's shown in an experiment that water can stick on a ball despite Earth's gravity pulling on it, even though they tried to spin it, the water remained on the ball, to do this they use an adhesive force, they don't have to throw it into space or anything like that.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk...

Also if you look at a line of transmission towers, you will notice that that they curve along with the Earth, if Earth was flat, then it should've been a completely straight line and it's not, it's curved.
https://gyazo.com...

[1] https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
[3] https://www.youtube.com...
[4] https://www.youtube.com...
[5] https://www.youtube.com...
[6] https://www.livescience.com...
[7] http://www.newsweek.com...
Edlvsjd

Con

"Since we'll start on water, which isn't always flat first of all. Water changes shape based on the object it is on, if you pour it into a wine glass for example, it does not become flat until you stop pouring it and eventually the top becomes flat."

The surface of water always finds and maintains a level surface. My opponent agrees that the surface of the earth (mostly water) is flat. The resolution has been affirmed.

"But it's shown in an experiment that water can stick on a ball despite Earth's gravity pulling on it, even though they tried to spin it, the water remained on the ball, to do this they use an adhesive force, they don't have to throw it into space or anything like that."

First my opponent has agreed that water finds a flat and level surface, then he points to a rock with condensation on it to prove that the bodies of water on earth are not flat. This is not a curved body of water. These are droplets of water stuck to a rock due to the naturally adhesive properties of tiny amounts of water, not gravity.

"Also if you look at a line of transmission towers, you will notice that that they curve along with the Earth, if Earth was flat, then it should've been a completely straight line and it's not, it's curved.
https://gyazo.com...;

The link that my opponent offers is not working for me, but i think im familiar with this argument. My opponent is jumping to hasty conclusions. He ignores refraction from an accumulation of water in the air over this distance. The light is bent when it travels through this water and the towers in the distance appear lower than they actually are. This is proved by placing an object on the other side of a glass of water and observing the change in it's apparent position, which is lower. This is an observable fact, shown with the scientific method. He agrees that water is flat and this contradicts the claim that the towers are going over some curvature. If the earth started curving down here as it appears to, ascending to 100,000 feet should make the horizon stay fixed. Meaning you would look down further and further to see it as you ascend, and, due to the properties of a ball, curve. As amateur balloon footage, such as the dog cam shows, this is not the case. Anyone who's rode a plane will agree that the horizon stays at eye level.
Debate Round No. 2
Youngastronomer

Pro

Water being claimed to just "find it's level" is a vague and unscientific way of expressing the physics of liquids. Water actually conforms to the forces acting on it, this is an undeniable fact. Just put water in any container and it will easily conform to the shape. So it's easy for water to sit on a giant sphere with trillions of tonnes of mass, what force causes water to simply find it's level I should ask my opponent? So for short, water does not simply "find it's level", it easily and naturally conforms to the forces acting on it.

My opponent says adhesive force is not gravity, no it's a simulation of gravity. Earth has enough gravity to hold the water on Earth, it also pulls to the center and not downwards, hence people in Australia don't feel upside down.

To see the whole ball shaped Earth, a satellite would have to travel about 900,000 miles as shown in the website showing pictures of Earth, all different due to the rotation.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Before my opponent vaguely claims that they are CGI (which they are not), these are true photographs, notice I said they are photographs not computer graphics. I hope my opponent understands that those are photographs.

It's a common claim that the horizon remains at eye level but it is only an assertion, how do you determine that the horizon rises to eye level? As you rise to a higher elevation, the horizon gets further and further away, with simple geometry (horizon dip angle), the viewing angle increases very slowly.
100 feet = 0.17 degrees
1000 feet = 0.56 degrees
10000 feet = 1.7 degrees
40000 feet = 3.5 degrees
To find the angle, you need a very precise measuring device, you cannot see it with the naked eye. How can I be sure if you are not tipping the camera or your eye slightly when looking out to the horizon? Your head is not a magical measuring device. Use an accurate leveling device to put it at eye level. The horizon does not stay at eye level.

[1] https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
[3] https://www.youtube.com...
[4] http://www.smarterthanthat.com...
[5] http://whatculture.com...
Edlvsjd

Con

"Water being claimed to just "find it's level" is a vague and unscientific way of expressing the physics of liquids. Water actually conforms to the forces acting on it, this is an undeniable fact."

If the water is at rest, as agreed upon, a body of water's surface will always be found flat. This is impossible if the earth is a ball. All bodies of water should have a measurable degree of curvature.

"Just put water in any container and it will easily conform to the shape. "

We're not talking about the bottom of water. We're talking about it's surface. I agree that water takes the shape of it's container, and that the surface will be flat, as pro stated in round 2.

"if you pour it into a wine glass for example, it does not become flat until you stop pouring it and eventually the top becomes flat." -youngastronomer

This is a non-sequitor. Saying that water conforms to its container and seeks a flat (level) surface does not equal "So it's easy for water to sit on a giant sphere with trillions of tonnes of mass" . This would require evidence that a body of water will conform to the the exterior of it's container, which has never been observed, and is unheard of.

http://www.ericdubay.com...

"what force causes water to simply find it's level I should ask my opponent? So for short, water does not simply "find it's level", it easily and naturally conforms to the forces acting on it."

Air pressure? Barometric pressure? Either way it's level and this burden of yours is unmet and just gains a few tonnes.

"My opponent says adhesive force is not gravity, no it's a simulation of gravity. Earth has enough gravity to hold the water on Earth, it also pulls to the center and not downwards, hence people in Australia don't feel upside down."

Yes, it's also a simulation of gravity and glue, we're looking for evidence here. You have a burden here, and a simulation of gravity does not meet this burden. I'm well aware of what the theory states.

"To see the whole ball shaped Earth, a satellite would have to travel about 900,000 miles as shown in the website showing pictures of Earth, all different due to the rotation.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov......

Before my opponent vaguely claims that they are CGI (which they are not), these are true photographs, notice I said they are photographs not computer graphics. I hope my opponent understands that those are photographs."

I hope my opponent realizes that an unverifiable image on a computer proves nothing. NASA can claim it is a photograph all they want, they also claim that were on a spinning ball too. There isn't conclusive evidence for either statement. Since we have agreed that a body of water's surface will be flat, the evidence suggests that this is not an actual photograph. Along with one of the alleged satellite's flagship "photographs" many anomalies.

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...

"It's a common claim that the horizon remains at eye level but it is only an assertion, how do you determine that the horizon rises to eye level? As you rise to a higher elevation, the horizon gets further and further away, with simple geometry (horizon dip angle), the viewing angle increases very slowly.
100 feet = 0.17 degrees
1000 feet = 0.56 degrees
10000 feet = 1.7 degrees
40000 feet = 3.5 degrees"

Where is the math on this? How did you come up with these numbers? We cannot assume this as truth until it is mathematically shown. Then, what about 100,000+ feet?
Debate Round No. 3
Youngastronomer

Pro

Water:
Seems like my opponent still does not understand how fluids work, water is not rigid, it changes shape based on the forces acting on it. The reason why water is curved on Earth is because of the gravitation pull to the center of Earth. Earth's gravity is a decent pull, strong enough to hold water to the center, as a result, water can curve around Earth, I have already shown this with a ball spinning with water on it, adhesive force acts as gravity and it works perfectly, even though it was spinning. Fluids do not have any form of rigidity.

So if you increased the water and also the mass of the sphere, it would remain on it because of gravity. People tend to float in space because of the lack of gravity there. But then again, I cannot prove that these are real, and you cannot prove that they are fake, so we'll need to leave NASA out of this then. But every other space agency from Russia (who agreed USA went to the moon despite their huge rivalry), Japan, China, etc. They all have pictures of a spherical Earth, so clearly it's not just NASA who appears to want to pretend we live on a big ball earth.

Curvature spotted, no fisheye lens:
https://www.youtube.com...
Now now, don't worry, it's not NASA doing some crazy pretend globe earth with their photoshop and CGI. This video here attempted to prove a flat earth but he recorded the curvature, I know you are going to claim fisheye lens but that would be impossible because he flapped the camera around and the shape did not change at all, suggesting the lens are not distorted and that the curvature has been spotted. thus proving the globe earth.

Proof of rotation:
If you look at the stars in Australia and UK, not only are they different, they rotate in the opposite directions (counter-clockwise in UK and clockwise in Australia), you can't feel the rotation because 1000 mph is very slow for a big giant sphere, you wouldn't feel much of it in a plane, so it's obvious why you can't feel it on Earth, you are moving with it.

Why it doesn't make sense that NASA is hiding the "true shape of Earth":
If NASA was lying and giving all these so called "fake CGI images" then why are they telling you how they get a photograph and fix it up? They would claim all the pictures were real, not to mention that every single space agency agrees that the Earth is round, so basically every space agency is lying to you, correct?

Horizon dip angle:
I got these numbers from the horizon dip angle, this video explains it.
https://www.youtube.com...

Lunar eclipses:
When a lunar eclipse is coming, you can clearly see the shadow of earth being a sphere, and it's already too obvious that earth is not a flat disk, so therefore this alone is enough to prove that Earth is a confirmed sphere.

[1] https://www.popsci.com...
[2] http://www.smarterthanthat.com...
[3] https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk...
[4] https://www.youtube.com...
[5] https://www.youtube.com...
[6] https://www.youtube.com...
[7] https://www.youtube.com...
[8] https://www.youtube.com...
Edlvsjd

Con

Water:
Seems like my opponent still does not understand how fluids work, water is not rigid, it changes shape based on the forces acting on it. The reason why water is curved on Earth is because of the gravitation pull to the center of Earth. Earth's gravity is a decent pull, strong enough to hold water to the center, as a result, water can curve around Earth, I have already shown this with a ball spinning with water on it, adhesive force acts as gravity and it works perfectly, even though it was spinning. Fluids do not have any form of rigidity.

This is all very nice, but you're making far too many assumptions here. Tiny droplets of water may adhere fine to a ball or basically anything that has a surface.

http://c8.alamy.com...

But when more than just a drop is measured, the body of water maintains a level surface. My opponent assumes the ball earth, so he can then assume that water will be affected by gravity in a way that males it curve. When any body of water is measured however, that body has been found flat, in any experiment measuring it. By making several assumptions here, my opponent makes an unevidenced claim, but never conclusively proves anything.

"So if you increased the water and also the mass of the sphere, it would remain on it because of gravity."

Another unevidenced claim. Where is this curved body of water.? If the earth is a ball, every surface of calmed water must form an arced surface.

"People tend to float in space because of the lack of gravity there. But then again, I cannot prove that these are real, and you cannot prove that they are fake, so we'll need to leave NASA out of this then. But every other space agency from Russia (who agreed USA went to the moon despite their huge rivalry), Japan, China, etc. They all have pictures of a spherical Earth, so clearly it's not just NASA who appears to want to pretend we live on a big ball earth."

I've explained how unverifiable images should not constitute as undeniable proof of anything. There is substantial empirically validatable evidence to the contrary, so we can afford to be skeptical of any photos.

"Curvature spotted, no fisheye lens:
https://www.youtube.com...;

A random video from youtube, very nice... but what makes the wide angle (fish eye) lens distort straight lines and bends them? Curved glass in the lens. All lenses have some degree of bend in them. The description of the video alledges the camera is a "gopro 3 silver and 4 black" gopros are known for their fisheye lenses, and it is less apparent, but a sharp eye will catch it. Concave earth stills from the video. I pulled a still from very close to the apex of it's flight and put a straight edge on it. Looks flat to me. I got them from the original video in the description of my opponent's video.

http://www.debateisland.com...

http://www.debateisland.com...

http://www.debateisland.com...

"If you look at the stars in Australia and UK, not only are they different, they rotate in the opposite directions (counter-clockwise in UK and clockwise in Australia)"

Again, you pointing at the sky and saying that THEY rotate in any direction at all is not proof that the earth is moving. My opponent will have us believe that we are moving at rates of up to 1,000 miles per hour, but that the earth is too big to notice it. 1,000 miles per hour is still 1,000 miles per hour. Faster than the speed of sound. Of course my opponent may give excuses for it not being detectable in any way, because the notion of anything other than a spinning ball is not acceptable. Mental gymnastics must be performed to grasp this concept when all one has to do is open their eyes and use their God given senses with the scientific method to figure it out.

"Why it doesn't make sense that NASA is hiding the "true shape of Earth":
If NASA was lying and giving all these so called "fake CGI images" then why are they telling you how they get a photograph and fix it up? They would claim all the pictures were real, not to mention that every single space agency agrees that the Earth is round, so basically every space agency is lying to you, correct?"

All in all, my opponent's burden was not met. There is no curved water for one. He admits this obvious and observable fact in the beginning round, basically conceding it then.

There is no detectable motion either. We can see the celestial bodies moving around above us, but this doesn't mean that we are moving along under them. Everything we can observe as unbiased observers on this earth is flatness (of water) and lack of motion. To take anyone's word for anything else is pseudoscience. My opponent may be gullible enough to take unverifiable images on a computer as scientific evidence for something that goes against our senses and everything that we observe, but the time has come to be more skeptical about whay the institutions and governments of the world are saying without evidence.

Now now, don't worry, it's not NASA doing some crazy pretend globe earth with their photoshop and CGI. This video here attempted to prove a flat earth but he recorded the curvature, I know you are going to claim fisheye lens but that would be impossible because he flapped the camera around and the shape did not change at all, suggesting the lens are not distorted and that the curvature has been spotted. thus proving the globe earth.

Refuted.

Proof of rotation:
If you look at the stars in Australia and UK, not only are they different, they rotate in the opposite directions (counter-clockwise in UK and clockwise in Australia), you can't feel the rotation because 1000 mph is very slow for a big giant sphere, you wouldn't feel much of it in a plane, so it's obvious why you can't feel it on Earth, you are moving with it.

Again, the first point is a strawman. Looking at stars rotating does not prove the earth is a spinning ball.

Why it doesn't make sense that NASA is hiding the "true shape of Earth":
If NASA was lying and giving all these so called "fake CGI images" then why are they telling you how they get a photograph and fix it up? They would claim all the pictures were real, not to mention that every single space agency agrees that the Earth is round, so basically every space agency is lying to you, correct?

Yes. We have empirical and common sense proof in the basic observation of the physics of water. My opponent admits. It falls flat in every measurable circumstance. This is impossible if the earth were a ball.

Horizon dip angle:
I got these numbers from the horizon dip angle, this video explains it.
https://www.youtube.com......

Sorry, didn't get to that part of that long winded strawman video. My opponent chooses to ignore the question about what degree drop a 100,000+ foot drop should show, and fails to show his math on the matter.

Lunar eclipses:
When a lunar eclipse is coming, you can clearly see the shadow of earth being a sphere, and it's already too obvious that earth is not a flat disk, so therefore this alone is enough to prove that Earth is a confirmed sphere.

A late round point that is also a strawman. He points, once again to the sky to prove that water is curved. What then of selenelions, where the sun and moon are both above the horizon so that the earth, even if it were proved to have curvature or axial or orbital rotation, could not possibly come between?
https://youtu.be...

Notice how the shadow comes from above, not from below as would be expected if the earth caused the shadow. Nice try, but try again youngastronomer.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 2 days ago
Youngastronomer
Even he's not butthurt, he's just quite a lot more intelligent than you are, no offence.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 days ago
Edlvsjd
I don't think you're butthurt, I'm talking about the other globetard. The one who thinks he's an actual scientist.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 days ago
Youngastronomer
You're 24 years older than me at this point and yet you seem to be quite childish in the comments.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 days ago
Youngastronomer
Ed, feel free to challenge me for a 4th debate with shared burden of proof. I don't see how I'm butthurt and you're upset about a vote against you that's had the truest words ever, you also barely refuted any of my points.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 days ago
Ramshutu
As Con appeared to lose this debate, perhaps he should introspect what he did wrong and what he could do better instead of throwing an online tantrum, and lashing out: then ironically saying others are butthurt.

Pro is 15, made a better argument, acted (and continued to act) more maturely, and more intelligently than con, a 39 year old; both throughout the debate and on to now (again no offense intended pro!).

You need to reflect on that, and ask yourself whether you should correct your behavior.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 days ago
Edlvsjd
The opponent understood this , and likely the vote as well, but he is a bit buthhurt, vowing to never allow me to win or tie another flat earth debate, whatever points he can take.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 days ago
Edlvsjd
It has been a while since our debate, and, as I said, I did announce my position in r1 and this wasn't argued.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 days ago
Youngastronomer
None taken, I'll take what you said as a compliment.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 days ago
Ramshutu
"Except for the fact that it was discussed that I take neutral ground in r1, and it was accepted."

As I explained, pretty extensively: the rules of the debate obviously and specifically implied shared BoP; it was not discussed in the debate or the comments that you take neutral ground. You maybe confused eith your attempt to unilaterally declare that Pro had BoP. As I also pointed out, also; you also had a belligerent and poor attitude, and descended into insults which would have, in it's own right, lost you conduct.

Perhaps Con should spend more time working on improving his arguments and debate etiquette, and less time reporting every single vote that goes against him, as it just makes him look like a petulant child and sore loser. There is something very wrong when in a debate between a 39 year old and a 15 year old, the 15 year seems more mature (no offense PRO).

.
Posted by Youngastronomer 3 days ago
Youngastronomer
Refuting the last point, the reason why you see the shadow coming from above is because that may have happened in Australia where people are upside down, but in UK, it ascends from the bottom, proving it is Earth's spherical shadow and thus, proof the Earth, is a sphere.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 5 days ago
Ramshutu
YoungastronomerEdlvsjdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments