The Instigator
Flipp3r
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
snkcake666
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is Earth a sphere or disk

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 2 votes the winner is...
snkcake666
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 930 times Debate No: 85545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Flipp3r

Con

Is Earth really a sphere? I disagree
snkcake666

Pro

Considering just how popular the new "flat earth" theory has become, I shall accept this debate. However, I shall be arguing in recognition of the earth as an oblate spheroid, not a perfect sphere.
Debate Round No. 1
Flipp3r

Con

Hello, thanks for debating with me. Ima against a spherical Earth,(oblate spheroid). I'm going to go over a few points to prove my argument that the Earth is flat, specifically a disk.

1) My first point is you could see the curvature with your naked eyes if the Earth was a sphere. It is a common misconception that the Earth is simply "to big" to notice any curvature in the horizon.Using the dimensions of the earth provided by NASA, there would be an 8 inch downward curve after the first mile, 32 inches after the second and 6 feet after the 3rd mile. After 20 miles the ground should curve 266 feet downwards.

Go to a place where the horizon is visible from on top of a hill or building and you can easily see for 5-10 miles with your naked eye. You will notice that the horizon is perfectly flat and there is not any curvature to be seen.

2) Next, I would like to ask the pro who believes the Earth is an oblate spheroid, why does the water and oceans not leak and "pour out into space". The flat disk Earth is surrounded by an ice wall that is actually well known and studied. 95% is pure ice and 5% is rock. If the Earth was a ball and gravity was pulling it downward then the oceans should be a curved shape.

3) Circumnavigation can be easily explained considering the Earth is a flat disk. Also it is impossible to move in a straight line, thats why you cant draw abstraight line on a paper, and it is impossible to go straight without turning the steering wheel when driving.

4) Also NASA photos never show clear 100% evidence that the Earth is a ball but rather in a 2d shape. I believe the moon landings were hoax. There is actually evidence with this such as the "C rock" and a photo of an astronaut with a reflection of a cieling camera in on his helmet, also Niel Amrstrongs suit has a different shoe pattern than the footprints on the moon. Also why is there no stars in the moon landing photos? NASA has been proven and exposed via acts of coverups. Here are aome sources.
http://www.spaceref.com...

5) Some people use GPS and sattelites as a primary evidence against flat Earthers. GPS can work using triangilation from cell phone towers. Have you ever seen an actual sattelite with your own naked eyes? I mean a sattelite that you know for a fact is an actual sattelite? Just because Google Earth or your cell phone says the Earth is a ball does not mean it is true.

6) If you consider the bible as a source then it actually explains the shape of the Earth better than NASA.
Job 38:14 "As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

7) Footnote- This is convincing evidence, I hope this will be a great friendly debate, and also one more point...Is it a coincidence that the United Nations logo is the same as the flat Earth map? I think not lulz anyways thank you on to the debate! Here are some more sources...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...
snkcake666

Pro

Challenge appreciated, Instigator. I would like to make an initial note- as a nonbiblical Christian, biblical passages are rather irrelevant to me, unless they can be directly substantiated by empirical evidence. I shall address each statement in which you have listed, and I shall provide a counter argument of my own. However, there is a strong probability that I will be limited in terms of words available, so if any information is left, I shall carry it over to the next round. All sources shall be listed within the text.



1. Well, quite frankly, that is the argument itself- Earth is too big to 'notice' any curvature at low altitudes. While not as common for commercial aircraft to exceed approximately more than about 40,000 feet, aircraft engaging in long-distance travel (e.g. across the world) can occasionally travel at an approximate 50,000 feet to 60,000 fee (though very rarely 60,000). At this height in particular (closer to 60,000 feet) is when the curvature becomes properly visible. However, given a broader range of view, this number can vary, give or take a few thousand feet. Source: (http://thulescientific.com...) A tall building is not where near tall enough to properly see the curvature of the earth. Even Mount Everest stands only approximately 26,000 feet at its peak.

Using the known mass and general density of the earth, 5.97E^24 kg (for mass), one can prompty calculate volume, and thus radius, to create a distinct isosceles triangle (using the radius twice on two separate points), given the measure of the arc of the earth is measured. This experiment was actually performed by a YouTuber under the name of Eccentric Views (https://www.youtube.com...). The full video will offer the calculatory model, but using two sky scrapers, he was able to determine curvature



However, what interests me is your actual lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that earth is in fact a "sphere". It seems as though the majority of your arguments are simple attempts to refute the validity of my claims. I am interested in how you propose a "center of mass" in a flat earth, unless you propose the same hypothesis as other conspirators- where the earth 'accelerates upward' at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 (the gravity constant of earth). But assuming that were the case, then please explain to me two things: A. What force is causing the earth to accelerate? B. In terms of relativity, what prevents the earth from accelerating to the speed of light?
If these were not under your assumptions, then please explain your own theory concerning the center of gravity and how it relates to the remainder of the earth. Without a center of mass, common gravity laws cannot function in the same manner as we witness on earth.

2. The reason which the oceans and atmosphere do not "pour" out of the earth into space is because of a force commonly referred to as centripetal force. This is an inward-pulling force (in the case of earth, 'gravity') which is constant at all times during the cirrular motion. In the same respect, this may apply to spheres in the third-dimension.

I will leave a diagram below that I wrote up. I do apologize if the handwriting is difficult to read, or if the lighting makes it difficult to see:


Another common misconception is that a vacuum might "pull" the atmosphere from the earth. This is misconceived, as a common laws of nature tends to state that areas of higher pressure disperse into areas of lower pressure, since the collective molecules are provided additional room to spread out. However, using this comparison to earth is under the assumption that the vacuum of space actually exerts a force upon the atmosphere. But, as there is no apparent 'force' within a third-dimensional vacuum, meaning that there is no actual 'pull', merely a push from earth's own molecules, ramming into one another in the space within the atmosphere. But this force is very minimal, and the force of gravity well exceeds this.

3. Circumnavigation is not exactly first priority on my list, but I may as well address this factor regardless. While yes, no line segment may prove perfectly straight, we have correction tools. However, statistically speaking, which is more likely- A round earth, where every attempt to circumnavigate was led astray by a consistent turn of the wheel, or a loop? This would be placing quite the assumption on just the vastness of human error

4. As an artist of hobby, this is actually a rather easy explanation as to why earth appears 'two dimensional'. In order to see "depth", a distinct light source must be present. In the case of earth, this is the Sun. However, negative-ground is also crucial into rendering depth. Space is quite literally a black void, so dark, that it is unable to produce any legitamate reflection of its own (due to lack of matter to reflect off of). This being said, no additional light is actually being reflected back onto the earth. But even still, often times depth can be seen.



s://www.nasa.gov...; alt="" />

Take this image for example. The edges do fade into darkness, even if ever-so-slightly. However, it is a visual effect, that it looks as though it has not, due to the overwhelming contrast between the space and the earth. (Sorry if the image posted rather large. I could not make it any smaller.) Image source: (https://www.nasa.gov...).

I am not particularly concerned about the "validity" of the moon landing, as that is a topic of another debate. This is a discussion of the earth's curvature, not the moon landing.

5. The ISS itself is actually observable in space via telescrope. In fact, NASA themselves gave guided instructions on how to witness it- rather confident.

s://www.nasa.gov...; alt="Image of a graphic showing how to locate a satellite during a viewing opportunity." />
This source also includes the datapoints of its elevation, approach, and departure.

There are quite a few accounts of individuals taking the liberty of viewing it themselves:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Here are only a couple of examples. Whether you wish to believe them or not is up to you; however, if you do not, I recommend looking for it yourself through their instruction guide. Guide at (https://www.nasa.gov...).

6. I mentioned at the beginning of this round that I am a nonbiblical Christian, and Bible passages do not concern me without proper citation and empirical evidence to support them. As the instigator does not seem to have listed any sources to "proof", I shall disregard this, as this is seemingly irrelevant as a source alone.

7. Actually, it is not uncommon for people to assume the reasoning for this phenomenon was an attempt for the flat Earth community to satirically mimic the logo, as an attempt to "troll". I might also note that your "convincing evidence" is a 404 'Not Found' error message.




I apologize if my argument lacked in mathematical proofs, but as this was only a twenty-four hour debate, and since I have school during the day, I was rather rushed on time. I also apologize if it was not well tuned, as I have been feeling exceptionally tired and fatigued as of lately, and my concentration has plummeted. Good luck on the next round, Instigator.





I shall leave you with a few experiments and observations, many of which have no direct connection to NASA:
https://www.youtube.com...;(Seventh grader builds balloon to upper atmosphere).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Flipp3r

Con

Thank you very much, I could not ask for a better opponent. I see that bibical text are irrelevant to you, but I thought I should put them in anyway for the audience. I want to convince people that the Earth is truely flat. Yes, the picture's you were trying to show is not working.

1) I looked into some of the videos you posted at the bottom of your debate. The "Hello Kitty in space" video was obviously fake, and I fail to understand why there was not any stars in any of the videos. It's interesting that the Grand Canyon video depicts a flat Earth. Also, there are countless videos and experiments depicting a flat Earth. Here is an experiment calculating that there is no curvature and that Earth is at an equal level.
https://www.google.com...

The answer to both of your questions is "Universal Acceleration", gravity", in the flat Earth model is an illusion. In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model, not at the speed of light.Universal acceleration is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center, like your drawing.

Here is a link explaining Universal acceleration in more detail.

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

My lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that Earth is a sphere interest you? I am claiming Earth is a flat disk, not a sphere.

2) I thought circumnavigation was an important concept in this debate, but again, the reason I mentioned the moon landing, and bibical was for the audience and voters, and also to clear common misconceptions to the typical round Earther who are flabbergasted when they hear "Flat Earth". You dropped these branches and went on to the main topic, but you never explained why a flat disk Earth could not exist and why the Earth is in fact a sphere.

3) I would also like to add another point, ...
It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it. This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe. There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind hills of water.

4) Thanks for the good luck, good luck to you as well. This is my first debate on this website, so I am still learning. I had to retype this...which was a bit fustrating, but anyways, good luck!
snkcake666

Pro

Last text of the debate, and I shall include the two initial pictures I was meaning to post in the intended order:






*Sources for these images were included in my last argument.


Anyways, it seems as thought the majority of your claims are centered around disclaiming every source of evidence, not taking it for face value. I have provided numerous sources throughout my first argument, however, you would quite literally be denying all of them at this point, simply stating that they are "fake". Simply because there are no stars, you would assume its falsity? In all actuality, it would make logical sense from both a scientific and artistic perspective: The atmosphere directly outside of the earth accounts for the highest light-reflectent ratio from the Sun as a source, meaning the overwhelming glare, which essentially allows viewers to witness the earth from the atmosphere, is what cancels out the prominent lightsource from the starts. Quite literally the immense contrast between the atmosphere's reflectent and the voidness of space is what determines this. This same "glare" in the same manner explains the visible "glare" along the equator in the NASA images (and in the one I posted above), since the nearest portion of the earth is the equator, due to the bulge in response to the moon's own gravitational pull.

The reason the that "Grand Canyon" one depicted this was only a matter of momentary perspective (due to the inability to see the entire earth at once). However, search close enough and the curvature will become evident. Of course, this could also be argued for the same purpose as "round disc", but this is why I also included the numerous other videos, for the same display of evidence.

*I would like to note that the Instigator's "experiment" is linked to a Redirect Notice and not to an actual source/experiment. Because of this, I cannot accept this argument as valid for this reason; however, I may still take a look at it if you provide the sourcing in the comments. But please note, as there was no physical way for me to review this information, this presented argument cannot be held against me in the actual debate, even if you do source it afterwards.




Concerning your stance on gravity, I did address you asking this in particular. I also stated the theory in response, which the earth travels at an increasing 9.8 m/s^2 in an upward direction, assuming the Northern Pole is within the positive direction on a Y coordinate plane. However, this is not what I asked. My thought was: Firstly, what is the force causing the acceleration? Only velocity may remain constant in outer space (whereas on earth, frictions such as air resistence will slow a velocity). Acceleration is an increasing velocity via mass over an alotted period of time (squared). And assuming you did define this "force", what exactly is the cause of this force, and where did it originate? Secondly, in terms of relativity, what prevents the earth from accelerating to the speed of light and beyond?
Again, I am already aware of the flat earth theory of "Acceleration", but my point, is this lacks in fine, key details. Its concept is vague and cannot account for several factors, and it most certainly can not substantiate them on one another.



Circumnavigation is a concept commonly used in support for those of use who believe in round earth. However, I did not state my argument on these evidences for two reasons: Flat-earthers have a tendency to deny the circumnavigation, even with a great many sources. Secondly, I did not feel the need, since my personal strengths (as an engineering major) lie in concept, universal law, and even a fair share in mathematics. I feel as though these evidences prove well more than enough to refute your claim of a disc-shaped earth, but I might also admit, I was exhausted last night. Considering the time restrictions on this debate, I was not inclined to remain up any later than necessary- so I apologize if it appeared as though this topic was neglected. But even still, I do not believe this is a necessary point to proving the curvature of the earth.
Well, the reason that I insist that earth is a sphere is because of A. The overwhelming resources and evidence which suggest it is (even from individuals and small engineering groups) and B. The fluidity of the logics behind the theory of a spheroid shape. However, I am not entirely sure why you would insist that it is even necessarily a plate. Denying NASA evidence is one thing, but what exactly gives one the impression that it is a plate, and not another shape? It seems as though this theory initiated, but instead of basing this theory on concepts and observations, th concepts and observations seem to be based upon this theory. This quite frankly strikes me as a result of the "Confirmation Bias." (http://psychology.about.com...). What "proofs" have ever empirically proven the actual "dics" shape of the earth? It is a simply, never-ending statement of rebuttals- but no assertion, no offense. The entire theory is always on a constant, defensive playing field, yet there are no experiments (and the few there are seem to deliberately or ignorantly overlook the vast size of the earth in the process, meaning an underwhealming sample size- as well as a lack of random sampling).



You state that "It is prove that a ship does not sink behind hill a hill of water." Well, you have not provided a "proof" here, so I am not particularly inclined to believe that unless you can provide that proof through either formula, theory, or source. However, bear in mind, that distance is a prime factor in conducting these experiments; many claimed experiments have only measured a mere six miles or less, but even in this, with a closer, micro-perspective, these calculations can be proven as well for round earth (refer back to the video of Eccentric Views).


And I apologize for one of my typos on the debate. I meant to state, "However, what interests me is your actual lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that earth is in fact a 'plate'." But again, as I was feeling ill last night, I was having a difficult time proof reading my argument.


Instigator, I am sincerely grateful for your time, and I thank you for the argument, as well as the topic. I do hope that the voters will consider voting on my behalf, but it be best that they also consider both sides of the conflict
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
I have informally debated him before. Unfortunately, his stances to not withhold on themselves, as he provides no proper sources to back his claims. The vast majority consist of his sources are randomly Googled for convenience sake and do not credit his points at hand. However, please note that I was sick during this debate.
Posted by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
*face Edjlvsd
Posted by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
If you will Edjlvsd (I don't know if this is the correct spelling), snkcake666 would never have a chance.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BrendanD19// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Better sources

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter doesn't explain any of their point allocations, merely restating the source point allocation without explanation.
************************************************************************
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Ah, okay.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
It's just to demarcate what's been posted from everything else. The sheets I'm actually typing these out on contain more information than what I end up posting, and this just marks the boundaries of what will be posted.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
@whiteflame
You always place stars in moderated comments. Why is that?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SactownBoom// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I have to go with the side that doesn't have their head up their rear. Also, Pro uses actual science and not internet quackery to make his point.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't justify conduct, S&G, or sources. (2) Arguments are too generalized. The voter has to examine specific arguments made by both sides and explain how they result in a given outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by Flipp3r 1 year ago
Flipp3r
Oh, I see
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
The first round was acceptance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Flipp3rsnkcake666Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: while con gives suggestive videos for his side, pro has precise calculations unrefuted by con's theorizations and pure claims.
Vote Placed by Bolas 1 year ago
Bolas
Flipp3rsnkcake666Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a very well rounded debate between each of the sides. Conduct on each side is even. Along with the Spelling and Grammar category. Sources were used on both sides so I have to give that a tie as well. I have to give the most convincing argument to Pro, mainly because he gave more calculations on how to prove his side. Which may be unfair for the disk theory, but the calculations are still important to the debate as a whole. Rather than saying that the arguments given by the opponent is fake, rebuttal it with data, statistics, facts, etc. that you can prove. The main reason that I am giving Pro, (Sphere theory), the points for most convincing arguments is for this reason: Pro was able to take rebuttals and still be able to show that his information and his side of the debate is stronger, maybe the wrong word. I do, however, want to let Con,(Disk Theory), know that if he were against another starting person here on DDO, he most likely win.