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

Flat-Earth "theory" is redundant

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  
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: 1/3/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,219 times Debate No: 98654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

kikiki

Pro

Rules:
1. First round is acceptance,
2. Cite your sources,
3. Make sure your sources are credible,
4. Let's keep the debate going no matter what, so, just because you have no arguments, that doesn't mean that the debate has to stop.

Also, have fun.
Debate Round No. 1
kikiki

Pro

I've recently visited Russia and was surprised as to how many Flat-Earthers there are. So I have decided to see some of the arguments that people have to prove to me that the Earth is flat.

First of all, Eratosthenes proved that the surface of the Earth is curved more than 2000 years ago (in 250 BC) when he observed that during the summer solstice in noon there was no shadow in the well in Syene. But, at the same time of day, during the summer solstice, the obelisk in Alexandria made a shadow which was 1/50 in proportion to the heigth of the obelisk. Not only was this proof the Earth is round, but also allowed Eratosthenes to quite precisely calculate the circumfurence of the Earth (it's about 50 times the distance between Syene (Aswald) and Alexandria).

Also, Holland (the Netherlands) is quite low, but you cannot see Dover or Kent from it. If the Earth was flat this would be possible. But it is not, reaffirming that the Earth is curved.
Edlvsjd

Con

"I've recently visited Russia and was surprised as to how many Flat-Earthers there are. So I have decided to see some of the arguments that people have to prove to me that the Earth is flat."

"https://www.google.com...

This chart has been tampered with, last I looked, there were 3 spikes all about the same level. More and more people are waking up, it's just using your God given senses, figuring out that you're being lied to, and examine evidence correctly. You are starting down a rabbit hole halfway through, once you realize what is really going on, the flat earth is an argument that can change your life forever, If you are open minded enough to entertain the idea (ie. go outside and imagine the earth as a stationary, infinite realm), to break the programming and indoctrination that we have all been succumb to for so long. If you are still in contact with any of those flat earthers, keep them. You have met some critical thinkers. Most of them are empirical observations, or common sense logic. I'm very impressed with your ability to Google proof the earth is not flat, and parrot their "excuse" for everything, I was there too, what reason do you have personally for believing you are on a ball?

https://youtu.be...

"First of all, Eratosthenes proved that the surface of the Earth is curved more than 2000 years ago"

Eratosthenes makes an assumption and uses a false constant in this experiment. Firstly, he assumed the sun was 93 Brazilian miles away, and because of this, the sun's rays were all hitting the earth in parallel lines. However, in the flat earth model, the sun is closer, and small, and the sun's rays do not hit the earth at parallel lines, as seen on any cloudy day. Modern scientism claims it is due to perspective, like railroad tracks that are parallel to each other, but there is an obvious difference, these are lines that are seen at their proper angles, they are not parallel lines receding away from the observer.

https://www.flickr.com...

http://www.eratosthenes.eu...

Evidence should be examined with scrutiny. There are two types of evidence, subjective and objective. Below is an explanation with examples of each type.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.

For example, Fred says "My foot hurts a lot." Is he lying? How much is "a lot"? What is Fred's idea of "pain"? ... a sharp, stabbing pain, or just his foot "fell asleep"?

Harry says "That was a hard test!" Compared to what? Did he study? Is this just a subject he finds particularly difficult?

Bill says "Boy, that was a great football game!" Compared to what? Who was playing? ... his son, the team he coaches, him, two pro teams?

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.

If Fred walks in with a cane, and a knife stuck in his foot, you can make a decision without hearing Fred's opinion!

If you read the test Harry talked about, you can decide for yourself whether it's hard.

If you see a video of the football game, you might see great plays, high scores, a last-minute win, etc.

Subjective evidence can be useful in a dichotomy, especially when there are several subjective points. However subjective evidence should be secondary to objective evidence. We will find that the majority of the ball earth theory is based on subjective material, while just the opposite holds true for flat earth evidence. When the evidence for spherical earth is not subjective, that evidence is often inconclusive, completely unrelated or simply misunderstood phenomena. What my opponent offers is objective, yet in this case, the proof works with both models, with objective evidence that is more likely evidence that the earth is flat.

Contention one: No Curvature

Joshua Nowicki has been photographing the Chicago skyline for a few years now.

https://youtu.be...

This would be impossible if he were doing so on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Modern science tells us that this is a mirage, but again, anyone who's actually seen a mirage, superior or otherwise, will agree that mirages are just "reflections" most of the time they are greatly distorted, and always upside down. Granted, visibility factors such as atmospheric blocking and waves and swells on lake Michigan sometimes do not grant this sight always, but the skyline is seen on a regular basis.

https://www.youtube.com...

This isn't the only instance of people being able to see further than they should, in fact, people are recently testing the globe, and the flatness of water to see landmarks that should be well over the curvature of the earth, and every time this test is done, no curvature can be found. This can be done easily if there is a fairly large body of water near you. All you need is a decent camera and the earth curvature calculator. This is yet another (objective) empirical proof that the earth is flat. I could present dozens of examples, but I feel that anyone can use Google, this is knowledge best obtained by actually researching, making personal judgements.


https://dizzib.github.io...
Contention two: Gyroscopes

Definition from Wikipedia: "A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours."

https://youtu.be...

Anyone who has ever owned a gyroscope can verify that they do verify that they do very curious things, even seemingly defying "gravity" sometimes. This experiment shows both, that the earth is NOT rotating, and can't be a ball. Gyroscopes have been spun up for hours at a time, and not even the slightest of rotations can be observed.

https://youtu.be...

Attitude indicators operate by use of a basic gyroscope. If the plane was flying over a ball, spinning, wobbling, going around the sun, which is bolting around our galaxy, that is rocketing around the universe at a combined rate of about 1,000 miles per second, they would be virtually useless, especially on transcontinental flights. Some higher end smart phones are equipped with a built in gyroscope. If yours has one, download any decent pitch indicator, and leave it on your night stand when you go to bed. Wake up in the morning and see for yourself that the phone has not moved or changed it's angle the entire time. Since your average person can get a good gyro and produce these same results, this is another (objective) empirically experimental proof that the earth is flat.

Contention 3: The Compass Problem

How a compass works on a sphere is problematic. For example, someone using a compass in South America should have a difficult time finding north. Why? Because the magnetic north pole would nearly be straight under foot, ie., directly towards the ground. A compass needle aligns itself and points toward the top of Earth"s magnetic field, which is now supposedly over far northern Russia. However, there is no indication that compasses have any more difficulty finding north in Southern Chile, South Africa, or Australia, or ever align themselves towards the center of the Earth.



Debate Round No. 2
kikiki

Pro

These are almost the exact same arguments I've heard from those Russians.

If the Earth is flat then how come we have day and night? The light of the sun would always hit the Earth's surface. If the Sun hides behind the edge of the Earth then why can't you show me a photo of the Earth's edge? If the Earth is infinitely wide, then where does the Sun go? And don't tell me that it is "like a spotlight". Light is a transversal wave (an electro-magnetic wave to be more precise) and it will travel indefinately which is why you can see the lights from all the way across town. It goes on forever.

First of all crepuscular rays are parallel.

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Sure, they do look like they are diverging, but that IS because of perspective. If they diverge then the sides of the mountains would be illuminated I live in Sarajevo which means I'm surrounded by mountains. Whenever I see crepuscular rays I never see them light up the side of the mountain that faces towards me. Nor does anyone. Just look at a side of a mountain that is away from the Sun. If the Sun was close and small then the mountains should be illuminated, but they're not.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk...

It's only the sides of mountains in the direction of the Sun that are illuminated. I have yet to see a mountain illuminated on both sides.

On the Equator, the circumference of the Earth is 24 902 miles. It's around 24 860 miles from the poles. But the elevation of the Earth should be taken into account. Joshua took the pictures from a dune in Grand Mere States Park in Michigan. And dunes there are HUUUUUUGE! I put in that he shot it from a 60 meter (200 feet) tall dune. And those are the smaller ones. So the target hidden height should be around 300 meters.

https://dizzib.github.io...

And don't forget that he was using a 70-300 mm lens with 1.4x extender. That would make distance even smaller (about 65 km) taking us to a grand total of 110 meters of target hidden height.

https://dizzib.github.io...

Also it's great how this guy disabled comments and ratings. That just shows he is right and cannot be disproven.

There's a problem with your gyroscope analogy is that gyroscope doesn't defy gravity. All of it's curious properties do infact come from gravity. Note that Earth's gravity doesn't work downwards. Gravity works towards the centre of the Earth. Gravity is the consequence of Earth's mass, whilst weight is the force at which the surface and the object work on each other. And it is caused by mass and gravitational acceleration (this was 7th grade physics).

Gyroscope stays upright because it IS being acted upon by Earth's gravity. The movement of the Earth is completely irrelevant. Planes do make constant adjustments. As the plane flies the gyroscope on the plane is being acted upon on a different angle by Earth's gravitational pull. It doesn't act independently of gravity. The angular momentum stops them from falling over and gravity pulls it down so it always stays upright.

Now, the compass thing. Bruh... Do you even science?!!! There is no magnet working independently of the Earth. Earth IS the magnet. The magnetic force doesn't work inside of the magnet. The magnetic field is expressed in the area around the magnet, not within the magnet itself. The lines of the magnetic field come out of the North pole and enter the South pole. There is nothing happening inside the magnet. Got that? Good.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

Also, in this video of Dave Murphy you have shown I have stumbled upon a pretty good question when he said why doesn't the Earth's watter spil from it's equator since the water on a tennis ball does? Well, the answer is actually quite simple. The Earth's mass is CRAZY large. The water also has mass and a gravitational pull (although quite smaller). The tennis ball not only has more rotations per second, but it also has an exponentionally smaller mass. That means that the velocity of the rotation of the tennis ball can easily overcome the gravitational pull of the tennis ball and the watter. The Earth's rotation can't do that.

Also, if gravity isn't real then there wouldn't be weight since gravitational acceleration is the consequence of gravity and weight is depends on the mass of the object (which is always the same) and the gravitational velocity of the Earth. If the Earth moved upwards then some parts of the Earth would fall off since the gravitational acceleration isn't the same on all parts of the Earth (on the poles it's 9.83, whilst on the Equator it's 9.79 m/s). If you say gravity is real then all on the Earth would still be pulled to the centre (yes, gravity would still work the same way because everything is always pulled to the center) and that would mean standing on the edge of the Earth would pull you towards the centre if you aren't strong enought to fight it. Running in a straight line from the center to the edge would be like climbing a hill even if everything was flat.

Now you may ask me why is there gravity. We don't know yet. We know how it works but not why. Einstein has a theory (I would call it a hypothesis, but whatever), but I'm yet to be convinced by it. Here's the article:

http://www.space.com...

If we could prove dark matter then I'd be convinced, but until then I remain skeptical.

Also, if the Earth is flat, what do you think is on the other side? Some said dirt, but that wouldn't explain volcanoes and the fact that the deeper you dig the higher the temperature is. Some say hell which sounds quite interesting.

I've heard that people who support the Flat-Earth theory say that it is a plot of the government to keep us ignorant. For the first hundred or so years that the Earth was flat (they didn't teach it in the time of Columbus, but at the very beggining they did) and taught people the Sun revolves around the Earth. They kept the masses ignorant for hundreds of years. Why would governments give up such an effective way to control people? That seems very stupid and poorly thought out.
Edlvsjd

Con

"If the Earth is flat then how come we have day and night?"

With a small, close sun, the light is shed locally. Perspective causes the sun to disappear from sight.

"why can't you show me a photo of the Earth's edge?"

The sun does not hide behind any edge. There may not even be an edge.

" Light is a transversal wave (an electro-magnetic wave to be more precise) and it will travel indefinately which is why you can see the lights from all the way across town. It goes on forever"

My opponent pretends as though there were no such thing as fog, smog, dust, dew, clouds etc. On a very foggy day, can he still see those lights from the nearby town? The sun is hidden both by a great distance, and atmosphere. This is only common sense, he is attempting to put the sun from his model into the flat earth model.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

"First of all crepuscular rays are parallel."

My opponent offers a picture from high altitude of some rays from the sun hitting a cloud formation from a greater distance away than what would cast crepuscular rays. Of course the sun is not included in the picture, so it may be close to setting, in relation to the formation. In short, the sun may be a great distance away from this cloud, but it doesn't necessarily mean the sun is far from all clouds, or the earth. The major difference between perspective lines and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

"If the Sun was close and small then the mountains should be illuminated, but they're not."

That sun is beyond the mountains, or the clouds are not allowing any light to come from the other side of the sun. Again, these crepuscular rays are not parallel. The rays would not be casting light in all directions under it. You can see that the rays are being cast towards the observer, away from him, to the left and to the right. This has been proven to be caused by a light source that is close to a blockage with holes.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

"I have yet to see a mountain illuminated on both sides."

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Not even when the sun is directly overhead?

Chicago Skyline

My opponent attempts a rebuttal to the skyline by saying that the image was shot from atop a 60 meter (200 ft.) dune with no source, but I'll accept that. As far as his camera bringing him 30 km closer, causing the city to be pulled backwards over the curvature of the earth? This is simply nonsensical, and I see no reason to take this seriously. The zoom will not make curvature disappear, nor will it place the observer closer to the observed, it only makes objects bigger.



Gyroscopes

My opponent attempts a rebuttal to gyroscopes with the gravity fallacy. I will now give my gravity rebuttal so he knows where I stand with that.

Gravity Is a theory. For thousands of years, people just accepted the fact that up was up, and down was down, and we aren't all just floating around, until it was postulated that the Earth was round. Then, the obvious questions came up ie. Why don't people fall off the bottom of the ball? Enter Newton and his apple, who said that since the earth was a ball, (an assumption) the earth must be acting as a big magnet. But he postulated this by looking at an apple falling down and assuming the Earth was a ball. Had a feather broke loose from a branch and floated away what would have happened then? In short, gravity is a theory based on an assumption. Which is ok, but sooner or later, you have to prove those assumptions, which is what my opponent is trying to do now, with that theory.

Let's look at that definition again.

When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum...

Note that gravity is not mentioned at all.

such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours."

We have seen that these things actually do not happen, which means either that gyroscopes are all faulty, or that the Earth does not spin under a gyroscope, or a plane equipped with one.

Compasses

My opponent's rebuttal to compasses is contradictory, and is mostly nonsense in word form. A few examples.

"There is no magnet working independently of the Earth. Earth IS the magnet."

Is my opponent suggesting that there are no magnets apart from the Earth that the Earth is the only magnet in existence? To clarify, he doesn't seem to know that the north "pole" in his model, and the center of the earth in my model, is the attraction that compasses are based on ie. All compasses point to north. if you are on the southern hemisphere, the needle that always face north is actually ointing into space, the opposite direction of someone in the northern hemisphere. This is a natural property of a ball.

"If the Earth moved upwards then some parts of the Earth would fall off since the gravitational acceleration isn't the same on all parts of the Earth (on the poles it's 9.83, whilst on the Equator it's 9.79 m/s)."

Despite what my opponent has read about the flat earth theory, or where he gets this information from, the earth isn't moving, much less 1,000 miles per SECOND.

My opponent then expresses his doubts and concerns with gravity...

"Also, if the Earth is flat, what do you think is on the other side? Some said dirt, but that wouldn't explain volcanoes and the fact that the deeper you dig the higher the temperature is. Some say hell which sounds quite interesting."

This is mere speculation. The furthest anyone has gotten was 7 miles I think, so i won't try to guess what is beneath our feet. I won't even bring up the Bible, and what is claimed there.

"Why would governments give up such an effective way to control people? That seems very stupid and poorly thought out."

I'm not sure how saying the earth is flat would be such an effective way to control people. Saying the earth is a ball would place limits on where people go for one. Humans are naturally free. When Columbus "discovered" America, (I don't agree, Native Americans discovered it long before) people flocked to the new land in search of land and resources. No living creatures like cages. Animals, when caged, will search for a few days for a way to escape, and when unsuccessful, will settle in and accept their prison to an extent. Animals on a wildlife sanctuary can go for a very long time before they are confronted with a fence. At this time they will probably just turn around and go back and think nothing of it. Humans on the other hand, will not. Questions arise like: how high is the fence? Who put it here? Why? Can the fence be penetrated? What is on the other side? Etc. We see this even with your model with "space exploration" Our master(s), that is, the god of this world, has effectively put up an invisible boundary by turning the earth into a ball.

If by control of the people he means obeying and worshipping a deity, then he has no idea WHO is in control. There is God, who is ultimately in control, and then there is the god of the world, who is in temporary control of most humans today. This entity wants nothing more than an atheistic population. The greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. It is the Great Deception in the "new world" order.

Thanks for the debate! One question, was the errortosthenes experiment the best reason that you believe the earth is a ball? Because you dropped it like it was hot.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Once pro explained gravity, it was over. Con could not adequately rebut gravity enough to win. I vote pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter must specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. The voter only states that one argument was the winning argument without explaining why.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
This is a Chicago mirage, plainly upside down.
http://www.gannett-cdn.com...
Posted by kikiki 1 year ago
kikiki
Well, yeah, it is upside-down. You're telling me you could determine what's up and what's down when you're watching the mirage of a skyline of a city that's what? 90 miles away?
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
"The camera collects more light, including light that is usually emited by far-away objects. "

The Chicago Skyline should be heading over curvature not hitting by distance you shouldn't be able to see it because there's a giant hump of water between Michigan and Chicago in your model. Had you made the mirage claim, I would have pulled up a joint University study led by the world's leader experts on mirages that says that mirages are always inverted or upside down.

You think you use facts. I use the scientific method, YOU use pseudoscience
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
The cognitive dissonance is strong in you my son
Posted by kikiki 1 year ago
kikiki
Dude, Edlvsjd, your answers were completely based pseudoscience. You basically said "To hell with science! I'll make stuff up." No, camera's inhancement doesn't simply bring the picture closer. The camera collects more light, including light that is usually emited by far-away objects. Also, if you watch the video closely, you will see that the skyline also flickers a bit and in no way resembles an actual skyline (only the tallest buildings can be clearly seen)

https://www.youtube.com...

This is the original video from his channel.

This happens when there is cold air close to surface of the water, and warmer air above it. The light refracts and gives us the mirage of a skyline.

You also got my clarifications wrong. When I was talking about the gyroscope, I wasn't talking about why doesn't it topple over, I was talking why gyroscopes in the plane and the artificial horizon don't tilt. Yes, rotation of the gyroscope does stop it from tilting, but that wasn't my point.

About magnets, I was saying that the Earth itself is a magnet and that there aren't independant magnets giving Earth a magnetic field. You twisted my words. Also, there is no magnetic field inside of the magnet. The Earth is the magnet that has it's own magnetic field. Why don't you understand?

Dude, if the sun was close and small as you would sugest, the curpuscular rays would HAVE TO light up far-sides of mountains since you say the light would be sprading in many directions.

Also, why is it that everything you say must be correct, but what I say is wrong, even though I use scientific facts and you use feelings?
Posted by kikiki 1 year ago
kikiki
You say it's right, I say it's wrong. Is that clear?
Posted by kikiki 1 year ago
kikiki
You know what, screw this.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Am I arguing that flat earth theory is truth or not redundant, to be clear?
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
Flat-earth theory is not a theory. It's not redundant; it's just wrong.
No votes have been placed for this debate.