The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Is the world 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,268 times Debate No: 84369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (56)
Votes (2)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

Please prove to me that the earth is anything other than a flat plane.
ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this topic. It is well known today that the Earth is not flat, but Pro is agruing that the Earth is actually flat. I wanted to make an easy experiment (and bring some more simple evidences) that the Earth is not flat. I will not bring any argument here to make sure that the debate was fair (since Pro hasn’t brought any in this round).

I will prove that the Earth is not flat, through an experiment which we are going to perform together with Pro. In addition, I may bring some more arguments that the Earth cannot be flat.

The experiment is very simple;

1. The length and direction of a stick’s shadow (due to sun on a flat surface) will be measured in two different places; Central Alabama, USA (Pro), and Manisa, Turkey (Con) at the same time.

2. The ratio of lengths of the shadow to stick will be calculated for both measurements.

3. The stick must be perpendicular to the face of the Earth. This can be achieved if the stick was hanged and could move freely, so that when it stops moving it will definitely be perpendicular to the face of the Earth (or water surface at that place).

We will share the data we obtained from our experiment (length and direction of the shadow, and the length of the stick we used). We have to share pictures of the stick and shadow with a ruler next to them (at least two separate pictures) and pictures showing how the experiment and the experimental setup was. We have to make sure that we are taking our measurements at the same time and at the same day (we can decide on that in comments section).

Using the data we measured, I will show that the Earth is not flat. Using the same data Pro will try to show that the Earth is flat.

Comments section can be used for further issues about the experiment if there is any..

Definitions

length of the shadow: the length of the shadow on a flat and un-inclined (with respect to water surface) plane. A balancer or water can be used to make sure that the shadow is not on an inclined surface.

direction of the shadow: The angle between the shadow and the closest meridian. A compass can be used to determine that. Or if it is guessed, then it MUST be very accuately done.

NOTE: For flat Earth the map in the following link will be taken as refence for our measurements and calculations (this map was suggested by Pro in comments section)

http://maps.bpl.org...

at the same time: Turkey is in GMT+2 and Central Alabama is in GMT-5 timezones, which means that, for example, when the time is 16:00 (4pm) in Turkey (evening) the time in Central Alabama will be 09:00 (9am, morning). This is meant by “at the same time”.

I wish Pro best of luck!

Debate Round No. 1
ssadi

Con

I asked Pro to make this simple experiment; he told me that he is very busy these days. I also asked him to confirm the accuracy of shadow calculation of any of the links I shared in comments section, but I have not received any reply from him yet. That is OK, we all may have busy times.

I tested the accuracy of one of them (its link: http://www.sunearthtools.com...) though. I made this experiment at 13:05 (GMT+2) in Manisa city of Turkey (in 01.01.2016), and measured the length of the shadow of a stick of length L as 2.04xL (ratio is 2.04). This site calculated this ratio as 1.95 which is 1.65*100%/2.04 = 95.6% accurate according to my measurement. So we can accept its calculations significantly accurate for our purpose. You (including Pro) can test it by yourself anytime you want. In order to be able to make my calculations I assume it to be accurate.

Experimental Argument


In the information about the map (Gleason's New Standard Map of the World) of the flat Earth in the link I shared in R1 it is given that the dimensions of the map are 55x39 cm. This means that we can measure the distance between any two points on the map. I measured the distance between Manisa and Alabama to be d=7.46cm. The sun’s orbit in 21st of December is measured, according to the information given on this map, as 9.37 cm. The sun’s orbit in 21st of December is given, as shown below.



Since we know where the sun is in 21st of December, I will make my calculations according to 21st of December, 2015. When it is 16:00 in Manisa (GMT+2) it will be 09:00 in Alabama (GMT-5). So, at this time the shadow-stick length ratios are calculated as 7.48 in Manisa and 5.03 in Alabama.

I plotted the projection of the sun and its rays to Manisa and Alabama as graphically shown in the following figure.

If the height of the sun from the surface of the Earth is h, then according to the shadow ratios we will calculate the distances from the sun’s projection on the Earth to Manisa and Alabama as 7.48h and 5.03h, respectively. I assumed a coordinate system centered at North Pole with +y-axis towards Alabama in order to calculate the distance of the projection of the sun to Manisa and Alabama according to the map’s ratios, in centimeters, as shown below.

I then made the following calculations, to find the ratio between h and centimeters of the map:




As it is shown, h~0.82cm. Therefore, the distance between Manisa and Alabama will be d=7.46cm=6.15h . Now the question is what is h, i.e. what is the distance of the sun from this flat Earth’s surface?

According to information in the Flat Earth Wiki’s site (http://wiki.tfes.org... ), the distance of the sun from the surface of the Earth is about h = 3000 miles = 4828km. Since we calculated the distance from Manisa to Alabama as 8.58h, then if the sun’s height is h=4828km we calculate d=6.15x4828km=29692km=18450miles (twenty-nine thousand and six hundred ninety-two kilometers). This means that it takes more than 29 hours for an airplane with a speed of about 1000km/h to travel from Manisa to Alabama, which is not the case with reality.

Besides, according to calculation of http://www.distancefromto.net... flight distance between Manisa and Central Alabama is about 9484.19km=5893.20miles.

The experimental data clearly show that what flat Earthers claim are not correct. If the Earth was flat, then the distance between Manisa and Alabama we found experimentally had to be something close to 9484km.. But 29692km makes no sense with reality. Therefore, it is experimentally shown that the Earth CANNOT be a flat plane.

A Strong Logical Argument

If we suppose that the Earth is a flat plane, then the question arises that why there is night and day at the same time in different regions of the world? Flat Earthers try to explain it (as in www.tfes.org) in the following way:
The sun's light is focused within a particular cone, so it will illuminate only particular regions while other regions will be un-illuminated, as shown below.


File:RenderedFE.jpg
Source: http://wiki.tfes.org...;

However, this explanation cannot solve the problem. Because if this was the case, then we would expect the sun disappear (in darkness) right in the sky. But when we observe sunrise and sunset, especially when observed above a sea, it is clear that the sun comes out from "BEHIND" the sea horizon (or whatever you call it) and hides "BEHIND", it doesn't appear and disappear right in the sky. This is how sunset looks like, the sun is not disappearing in the darkness due to its "focused light".


Source: https://www.google.com.tr...;

There are many many other arguments, but these two are strong enough to show that the Earth CANNOT be flat. But still, I am excited to see what Pro will say to these.. I wish him best of luck!

Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Pro

Hey thanks again for accepting the debate new friend, yes it's true, with a wife, two kids and a thrift shop to operate, it's difficult to find time for anything other than type up a few thoughts before sleep. As for the whole top portion of your round 3 argument, I bid you good luck with all that. I really do. I'm not even going to try any more to evaluate that information. The last bit however I can understand enough to respond to. You do realize that there is a vanishing point for everything. With enough distance, everything eventually disappears. The sun is no exception. You think the heliocentric model sun is supposed to gradually fade out?
https://youtu.be...
Time lapses of the sun shows it is on a path with no "wobbles" and it is shown to get closer and bigger as it gets closer to the observer.
https://youtu.be...
ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting his arguments.

CORRECTIONS FOR R2

1. 1.65x100%/2.04=95.6% --> 1.95x100%/2.04=95.6%

2. Calculated d: 8.58h --> 6.15h

3. In R2 I forgot to post two pictures which show the shadow lengths:

Manisa




Alabama




INTRODUCTION

First of all, I would like to thank Pro for wishing me luck for my experimental argument. It would be better if he examined the calculations and commented on what he thinks, does he agree with my experimental arguments or not? He said: “I’m not even going to try any more to evaluate that information.” I want to ask why? Under comments he claimed that such experiments work with flat earth. I showed with experiment and mathematical calculations how the reality doesn’t agree with flat Earth. At least he could make some comments about the contents of that argument as a respect to efforts for experiment, time spent for drawings (drawings are important LOL) and calculations I provided. The first argument was extremely important because it was pure mathematics on the solid data we obtained experimentally (note that due to Pro being busy we couldn’t make the experiment, but I assumed that the data I obtained from a shadow calculation web page to be accurate and used those data as our experimental data). A logical argument can be criticized with another logical counter-argument, no matter which one is actually correct. But a mathematical calculation can only be criticized by showing the mistakes in the calculation. I put more weight to this argument because it was our first aim of this debate to make an experiment together with Pro and let the data take us to the truth. Visit the following link for our conversation with Pro about making an experiment together under the comments of the following debate (in two beginning pages of the comments):

http://www.debate.org...

Secondly, we should debate a topic with each other, not with some guy on YouTube. We can show a YouTube video or some other references that support THE ARGUMENTS WE MAKE. But we cannot give a YouTube video or some other references AS OUR ARGUMENTS. That way I could give references to multiple textbooks on Optics, Mathematics, Geography, Analytical Geometry, Trigonometry etc. and then say that according to all materials discussed in those books the Earth is not flat, but it is spherical. If I did such a thing, then would my opponent be responsible for refuting the materials discussed on all of those books that support the spherical Earth, or those that refute the flat Earth idea? The answer is, of course, NO. Similarly, Pro’s shared links also must be considered in this way.. But still, I will discuss some claims made in the first video, after my rebuttal to only two arguments that Pro has provided.

1. "You do realize that there is a vanishing point for everything. With enough distance, everything eventually disappears. The sun is no exception."

Answer: Exactly! The question is "where this vanishing would take place?" As it will be shown graphically under my final arguments, if the Earth was flat, then we would expect this vanishing to take place right up in the sky. But instead we see the sun going down the ground of this flat Earth, which is clearly contradictory.

2. "Time lapses of the sun shows it is on a path with no "wobbles" and it is shown to get closer and bigger as it gets closer to the observer."

Answer: The sun actually seems to get smaller than it was just after sunrise as time passes until noon and then get bigger as the sun "heads" (according to our percetion) towards sunset. You can coonfirm this just by observing the sun in mid-day and in sunrise/sunset. An explanation to this is the refraction of sun rays by atmosphere, as demonstrated in the following figure.




This change in the size of the sun happens both in flat Earth model and in sphere-like Earth model.. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an evidence for one model and against the other. It, at least, doesn't refute anything about sphere-like Earth model.

REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS MADE IN A YouTube VIDEO

I. Darkening of the clouds even when the sun is there..

Pro shared a link as a rebuttal to my argument that the sun should disappear right in the sky if the Earth was flat. He said that “You think the heliocentric model sun is supposed to gradually fade out?” According to flat Earth model the sun should gradually fade out right in the sky instead of going down the sea level. In the video in the link he shared it is shown that the clouds get dark when the sun gets closer to sunset, but it is still there. Then it is concluded that this darkening shows that the sun actually vanishes in the sky during the sunset. I strongly disagree with that. There are several other reasons for that darkening.

1.
Incidence angle of sun rays

One of them is that the incidence angle of the sun rays while entering the atmosphere, coming to the point of observation, increases as the sun gets closer to sunset, resulting an increase in back-reflections. So a general darkening and a decrease in sun’s brightness is expected. But complete darkening is impossible, because an incident light with an incidence angle less than 90 degrees is never reflected back completely (the complete back-reflection is called as Total Internal Reflection in optics) by a higher refractive index medium when the light is coming from a lower refractive index medium. For this reason we can more easily look at the sun in sunrise and sunset as compared to noon time. And again for this reason the sun doesn’t vanish/disappear before it goes completely down the see level.

2. A property of recording camera

The other reason why we see darkness in the clouds is not because the clouds are actually getting that dark. Pay attention to the ground when the video is paused to show darkness in the clouds.. It is too dark which is not the case. I took pictures of a ceiling with a light source turned on. I stayed in my position and took multiple photos of the same place of the ceiling, touching different sides of the light source with my finger (by which the mobile phone tries to focus to that point). In reality (I was observing with my naked eyes) the brightness of the ceiling was the same for all the pictures. So why is it dark in one photo and bright in the other? It is obviously not because the light source is going away from me or vice versa.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Instead of discussing some other stuff discussed in the videos Pro shared, I would like to post some other arguments, which I believe answers almost all of the points made in those videos. I will show my arguments using figures. Please note that the figures are drawn roughly (for example the Earth is very small as compared to an observer drawn on it) and not to scale.


i. A Small Introduction to Refraction: Snell’s Law



1. In sunrise and sunset the sun seems to go "down the ground" (lower than the sea level), which is impossible in a flat Earth.





Iff the Earth was flat, we would expect to see the sun in (2) when the sun is in (1). What we actually see is number (3) which is completely impossible to be explained if a flat Earth is considered..

2. The sun doesn’t fade out in the sky in evenings, therefore the Earth is not a flat plane.




3. Sunrise and sunset show that the Earth has a sphere-like shape.



4. Presence of day and night in different regions of the Earth at the same time show that the Earth has a sphere-like shape.



CONCLUSION

I provided Experimental arguments, logical arguments, common sense and observational arguments, prepared some figurative demonstrations of my arguments that there is no way and it is completely IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to be a flat plane. Pro failed to refute any of my arguments. Besides he didn't provide any convincing argument whatsoever that PROVES that the Earth is flat.


I would like to thank Pro for this debate. I would like to thank voters for their time, review and voting in advance.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 10 months ago
ssadi
Thank Pro!
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
Edlvsjd
Congrats con!
Posted by kingofd20 10 months ago
kingofd20
Sorry Pro you came to school with a baloney and cheese he came with lasagna and a thermos of bistro.
Con Not only presented a very clear argument but with much work presented about how all of us could come to the same conclusion. his simple experiment works, and has been proven to work for centuries. Pro only gave us another Youtube video that is plagued with bad science, withholding information that would invalidate the point of the video. Please Pro I am begging you to do yourself a favor and watch some counter argument documentaries, take some courses, and stop in at your local library and read some books on the subject of geography.
Posted by Edlvsjd 10 months ago
Edlvsjd
Lol the voters don't even understand that stuff
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
Common sense and observation > mathematical equations, sorry if you refuse to admit you saw what you know you saw, I concede to your math problems, you concede to common sense and observation.
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
"The age old saying "ignorance is bliss" withholds a mighty truth. This is not to say that a continued state of ignorance is blissful, it is rather to say that when one recognizes that one is ignorant of a subject it immediately puts them in the position to explore, with a childlike wonder, all the gems waiting to be found within the investigation." " Claudia Pavonis

It is so ironic for you to post such a quote, if you understand!!!

If you want to continue discussion on the topic, then start refuting my arguments in R3 such as hand-drawn pictures and long string of confusing (to you because of your ignorance in math) letters. You are not making any argument, you are asking me something to imply that the Earth was flat.. But what you show me doesn't contradict a spherical Earth model. On the contrary, they perfectly fit with spherical Earth model..

In 11th century a Muslim Scholar called Abu Rayhan al-Biruni used a very easy way with instruments available at that time and measured the radius and the circumference of the Earth very accurately as compared with what we know today (he measured the radius of Earth as 6339.9 km which is only 16.8 km less than the modern value 6356.8 km). For more information visit the following link:

http://www.jscimath.org...

There is no point of discussing this topic if you don't know Geography, Optics, Math and Physics.. This topic is a topic of these fields. Show me please that you understand these topics, then I will continue discussions with you.. For example, please explain to me what mistakes are in the above article which proves that the Earth is spherical? I will not discuss this topic with you unless you show that you understand things related to this field.

I didn't mean any offense, I apologize if anything offenses you!! FYI
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
"The age old saying "ignorance is bliss" withholds a mighty truth. This is not to say that a continued state of ignorance is blissful, it is rather to say that when one recognizes that one is ignorant of a subject it immediately puts them in the position to explore, with a childlike wonder, all the gems waiting to be found within the investigation." " Claudia Pavonis
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
No explanation? Not even a long confusing string of letters, numbers and hand drawn diagrams?
Posted by Edlvsjd 11 months ago
Edlvsjd
Back to the video, I don't think anything was fake, besides the Gopro's wife gov lens(fisheye) making lines appear to curve unless it's centered. My point is if you punch time and date in it says the Moon is on the exact opposite of the earth, but you can see it from above Nevada.
http://www.timeanddate.com...
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
model.*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by persianimmortal 10 months ago
persianimmortal
EdlvsjdssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: With all those calculations...Con has got to be right
Vote Placed by Dpowell 11 months ago
Dpowell
EdlvsjdssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Though Pro didn't have a lot of time, he didn't really attempt to argue against Con's points very much. What little he did, wasn't enough to be considered a good, liable and/or complete argument.