The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
smoothpoints
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Scientific evidence overwellmingly supports a flat earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
smoothpoints
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 147,968 times Debate No: 39074
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

im a physics major and i see that the flat earth is a very VERY viable and scientificlly sound. First round is for accept. Second round is for me to kill u with my evidence.
smoothpoints

Con

I accept! Please fire away with all your evidence, hoping for a good debate.

Due to the nature of the topic trolling is possible, in which case I will forfeit the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

As a physics major almost having a B.A. I thought flat earth theory was a stupid. I belived earth was round but i question ALL. I encorage con and voters to question all too. I saw the evidence and did calculations and i became convincded that the earth was indeed flat according to our current knowledge.

Also i didnt say in the first round but con must offer proof of round earth too.

Hard evidence that the earth is not a globe

A. Intuition

If i tell you your not reading words right now you would laugh and reject it. And rightful so. Intuition is powerful indicator of what is true and what if more likely true. You tell me earth is round is telling me to reject what my eyes tell me. Dont tell me to reject that. Simple proof there. The burden of proof should be on con becacuse a round earth is violating intuition. If con no have convincing arguments a flat earth is assumed

The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him - that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - yes, and to inspiration - and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.

B. Experamental evidence

Yes, believe or not there is experamental proof of a flat earth.

like from the english mechanic. The english mechanic is a peer reviewed science journal. Before round earth bias was speread they published this

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment

"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.

The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!" (1)


Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.

Oh yes there's more proof to.

Professor Mark Fonstad of Southwest Texas University demonstrates that Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake (2) violating round earth assumptions

Very comman assumption is that with distance a curvature is demonstrated. If a state like kansas is flat than the assumption of curvature with distance is false


Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught
that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

There should be a curvature factor if said earth is a globe. Being that engerneering has never found it, the earth is flat.

As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear,
as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be,
whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing,"
a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.


I could go on. But proof coems to proof of flat earth

Philosophy proves it
Science proves it
Mariners prove it
Engenerring proves it

The Earth IS FLAT




(1) "The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al), ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904
(2) http://www.improb.com...


smoothpoints

Con


Opening Remarks



Thank you to Pro for laying out his first arguments so quickly. I will use this round to lay my points out and then next to rebuke points made by Pro. Following is a series of arguments that the Earth is a spherical shape.



1: The Earth Viewed from Space is Spherical




This photograph taken from the Atlantis shuttle demonstrates visually a curvature of the planet which demonstratively proves the Earth cannot be flat. A flat earth is presumably running across one long horizontal plane which does not facilitate a curvature.


Now that we have access to space, the easiest way to prove the Earth is spherical is to leave it and view it from a distance. Astronauts and space probes have done just that. Every picture of Earth ever taken shows only a circular shape, and the only geometric solid which looks like a circle from any direction is a sphere.



2: There is a Horizon



Perhaps the strongest proof of a round earth is that if you stand on any location on the world on a clear day where visibility is not obstructed, you cannot see infinitely in any direction you look suggesting a slow curvature. If you don't believe this stand at the port of a harbor and slowly watch a ship leaving in the opposite direction with some binoculars. You will observe that the ship slowly 'sinks' behind the horizon line.



3: Possible to Circumnavigate the Globe



Presumably with a flat earth, if you travelled so far in for example an aeroplane, one would fall off the edge. Again, real life shows that this is not the case. In 2005 Steven Fosset circumnavigated the Planet Earth without stopping in his aeroplane[1]. After a 76 hour and 45 minute flight, travelling 26,389.3 miles he landed in the area he took off.



[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...



4: The Existence of Timezones



If the time is 5:00PM in London, it will be 6:00PM in Spain, 1:00PM in New York and a variety of different times across the world.


This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.



Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us. The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.



Closing Remarks



I could go on making points about this subject but I know you have chosen to argue form a tricky position which I respect. In the next round I hope you will rebuke some of the points made above to prove the earth is indeed flat. In my round 2 I will rebuke the points made in your round 1.


Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. Earth from space deception

Ok, that picture doesnt show the earth is curved. It shows its a circle. It can be flat and a circcle. The funny thing is that its obviously faked. Anyon who has a background in cameas can say that.

Steve McCurry in the book Untold: The Stories Behind the Photographs he tell us

"No shutter today could be used outside the earth. The loss of gravity would damage any pictures and the camera."

Jus some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Goin outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

More thinks on the picture. If it was a true pic why is there nothingg but black space around it? The atmopshere would of had a glow. hahah the earth must of lost its atmosphere so we could take the pic!

Its very likely that theres a conspiracy going on. Did you know there was NO delay in communication netween Astronauts and Mission Control in the apollo mission (1)? NASA doesn't even put an appropriate delay between the astronauts in the LEM and mission control to account for the moon's distance. The astronauts and Huston are communicating faster than the speed of light.

You can see wires on the moon too look at the vid. It proof that NASA is a big fake orginazation




And on the space station we find bubbles and lights prove the ISS to be a big fake. Look at other vid. The ISS also fake starfields (2)



Virtually no one begins with the conspiracy and develops a belief in the FET. A zetetic starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this. As a consequence they assume the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to:

 P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated

P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
contradicts the FET

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
is fabricated evidence
 P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it

P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

Now we must understand there is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

See this quote from president Lyndon Johnson:

 "Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity
would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood,
to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and
change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the
ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control
over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space."

-President Lyndon Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for
Space, January 7, 1958

One month later, Lyndon Johnson and the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics drafted a resolution to change the name of the US Army's Ballistic Missile Arsenal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.




NASA can easy fake this stuff. There is a conspiracy so all proof from nasa is a fake.

2. Sinking Ship effect

This is good proof of a flat earth. 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" (3).

In consequence of the fact being so plainly seen, by everyone who visits the seashore, that the line of the horizon is a perfectly straight line, it becomes impossible for astronomers, when they attempt to convey, pictorially, an idea of the Earth's "convexity," to do so with even a shadow of consistency: for they dare not represent this horizon as a curved line, so well known is it that it is a straight one! The greatest astronomer of the age, in page 15 of his "Lessons," gives an illustration of a ship sailing away, "as though she were rounding the top of a great hill of water;" and there - of a truth - is the straight and level line of the horizon clear along the top of the "hill" from one side of the picture to the other! Now, if this picture were true in all its parts - and it is outrageously false in several - it would show that Earth is a cylinder; for the "hill" shown is simply up one side of the level, horizontal line, and, we are led to suppose, down the other! Since, then, we have such high authority as Professor Richard A. Proctor that the Earth is a cylinder, it is, certainly, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

In Mr. Proctor's "Lessons in Astronomy," page 15, a ship is represented as sailing away from the observer, and it is given in five positions or distances away on its journey. Now, in its first position, its mast appears above the horizon, and, consequently, higher than the observer's line of vision. But, in its second and third positions, representing the ship as further and further away, it is drawn higher and still higher up above the line of the horizon! Now, it is utterly impossible for a ship to sail away from an observer, under the, conditions indicated, and to appear as given in the picture. Consequently, the picture is a misrepresentation, a fraud, and a disgrace. A ship starting to sail away from an observer with her masts above his line of sight would appear, indisputably, to go down and still lower down towards the horizon line, and could not possibly appear - to anyone with his vision undistorted - as going in any other direction, curved or straight. Since, then the design of the astronomer-artist is to show the Earth to be a globe, and the points in the picture, which would only prove the Earth to be cylindrical if true, are NOT true, it follows that the astronomer-artist fails to prove, pictorially, either that the Earth is a globe or a cylinder, and that we have, therefore, a reasonable proof that the Earth is not. a globe

3: Possible to Circumnavigate the Globe

This is no problem. It is a proof too

It is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and - a proof that Earth is not a globe.

The earth being flat still had a back side. Yeah it can be taken underneath. This argument is the weakest of all.

4: Timezones

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth.



When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplain (or hemisphere) and summer in the south. A more simplistic picture can be found below.




Closing remarks

Cons arguments no show the earth is a globe. they are explained and some give me support. we should assume the earth to be flat until con can prove otherwise.


(1) http://www.hq.nasa.gov...
(2) http://marsanomalyresearch.com...
(3) http://www.sacred-texts.com...
smoothpoints

Con

Thank you to Pro for responding so quickly, although I admit I had expected better cases in your round one. I discovered all your original sourcing was from a highly dubious site called theflatearthsociety.org. Nevertheless I will briefly refute each point.

Points made in round one

‘The common sense of man tells him - if nothing else told him - that there is an "up" and a "down" in -nature, even as regards the heavens and the earth; but the theory of modern astronomers necessitates the conclusion that there is not: therefore, 'the theory of the astronomers is opposed to common sense - yes, and to inspiration - and this is a common sense proof that the Earth is not a globe.’

Here, pro enters the realms of pre-science to prove his theory. His perception that there is an up and a down is indeed true. However these exist alongside forward, right left and backwards. It was difficult to really understand this statement, but I suppose it indicates that you are unaware of curvature while standing still. This is because the curvature of earth is to such a gradual degree that it is not felt while standing in one place.

‘like from the english mechanic. The english mechanic is a peer reviewed science journal. Before round earth bias was speread they published this….’

This article appearing in this Journal was indeed the product of an early experiment on the Bedford canal[i]. However upon further research I found that although this early result seemed to indicate a flat earth, later attempts did indeed verify evidence the earth is round. The error in his investigation was that his method involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.

‘Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught

that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

There should be a curvature factor if said earth is a globe. Being that engerneering has never found it, the earth is flat.’

Again, the gradual nature of the curve deceives someone constructing short constructions such as tunnels. For railways and canals if drawn from point to point on a map the curvature of the earth is indeed present on the map, can pro please give the quotation a little more context if I misunderstand.

‘I could go on. But proof coems to proof of flat earth

Philosophy proves it

Science proves it

Mariners prove it

Engenerring proves it

The Earth IS FLAT’

I beg you to go on, it seems that your dubious website has run out of sources so I encourage you to find some more to support your hypothesis.

Pro round two

Here I was impressed with some of what you had to say. I will again break it down:

The first half was about NASA being a supposedly fake organisation, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution so all this will be ignored.

2. Sinking Ship effect

This is good proof of a flat earth. 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" (3).

Your source here was totally unreliable and there have been no experiments which prove what you are saying.

3: Possible to Circumnavigate the Globe

This is no problem. It is a proof too

It is utterly impossible to circumnavigate the Earth in any other than an easterly or a westerly direction; and the fact is perfectly consistent and clear in its relation to Earth as a Plane.. Now, since astronomers would not be so foolish as to damage a good cause by misrepresentation, it is presumptive evidence that their cause is a bad one, and - a proof that Earth is not a globe.

The earth being flat still had a back side. Yeah it can be taken underneath. This argument is the weakest of all.

How is it known that it is impossible to circumnavigate north? Please explain.

4: Timezones

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth.

Here the argument is weakest. Imagine you are sat on an enormous flat plate. A spotlight slowly moves around the plate illuminating the area slowly. If you look up you will be able to see the spotlight despite it not shining onto your eyes because it is always visible. This is not the case for those on planet earth, evidenced by the hidden sun during night time.

Closing Remarks

I appreciate your tenacity and look forward to your round three.



[i] Correspondent (25 September 1901). "The British Association". The Times (London) (36569): 12. "Mr Yule Oldham on his re-measurement of the curvature of the Earth along the Bedford Level."

Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

His rebuttals are full of err.

intuition

Here, pro enters the realms of pre-science to prove his theory

ohhhh this is gold. He say intuition is pre-science. Heres the gold, science is based on intuition. if u reject intuition your position is self refuting because u reject science. The FET is the only coherent positiion to accept science. In order to believe the earth is round u must believe it is flat. Slef refuting, therefore the FET is true.


However these exist alongside forward, right left and backwards.

Comeon, this is against intuition. It funny, con never refutes this argument, he tell us what round earth theory is.

Experamental proof

Bedford experament

This experament wasn't done once. Look at con's source

"Mr Yule Oldham on his re-measurement of the curvature of the Earth along the Bedford Level."

Mr. Yule did do an experament but he wasnt the ONLY one. Mr. Yule's experaments being invalid, dont invalidate all experaments. Samuel Birley Rowbotham did the experament serveral times with professinals. Con does no refute experament by Lady Anne Blount and Clifton. He responded to a different experament not the one i sourced.

The only time the experament showed a curved earth was by Ulysses Grant Morrow. His experament was invalid, this is concensios [1]

Rebuttal es fail.

Hey! Where my argument from kansis go? Con forgot or ignored because he cant refute. Kansis should show a sh1t load of curvature. Hey where my mariners argument go? I win on those two.

Con gives no proof of curvature present on maps. Maps are flat not curved!

I beg you to go on, it seems that your dubious website has run out of sources so I encourage you to find some more to support your hypothesis. - Con

lol, where's your proof? Con has almost none. Lets look at his

1: Earth from space

He dropped it. He say
The first half was about NASA being a supposedly fake organisation, which is totally irrelevant to the resolution so all this will be ignored.

Are you kidding? Its your entire argument! No NASA, no picture of earth no argument for you? I win on this point

2. Sinking Ship effect

Con ignore my other two point about the ship effect proving flat earth.

Your source here was totally unreliable and there have been no experiments which prove what you are saying.

How can it be unreliable? Why? He say no experiment show it i gave source. Get me this, i give source to con and he will say its unreliable. This make Cons position unfalsifiable and science requires falsifacation. Why not me just reject all of cons sources without sayign why they suck? Thats what con did. I should win on that.

3: Possible to Circumnavigate the Globe

NO one has circumvaigate north-south (2). And so what? The earth has a back side lol. Flat earth is not the "No back side theory".

4: Timezones

Hahahaha really? Con think Im saying the sun IS a spotlight. The sun acts like a spotlight it isn't an spotlight? ROFL. A spotlight is small on an observer. The sun is big but shine like a bright spotlight. It is a type of spotlight. Con fail here too

Closing Remarks

When proof comes to proof the flat earth prevails. Cons argument in round 3 is obviously weak he having problems with my case. Many think FET is not an intellectially defensable position WHy is con having so much trouble with my arguments? He ignore 2 and drop his argument. I win, sorry but it true.



(1) http://www.lhup.edu...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...





smoothpoints

Con

Don't have time for this ridiculous debate.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jessevsm 5 months ago
jessevsm
I realize I'm rather late to this debate page, and perhaps there are others like this, but I felt I'd offer a short response to this 'debate'

I've been exploring this topic for several months now. Hearing some of the questions that came from the flat earth community fascinated me because I didn't know how to respond. I didn't know the answers at all.

The more I've explored the topic, however, the more I've come to realize that the flat earth 'model' does not ultimately make sense. Though the Gleason's map projection is currently accepted by the flat-earth community as being the most likely to be true, it also has many problems with it.

I'm uncertain whether the "pro" side individual in this debate was truly in school for what he claimed, but I can say that he was definitely NOT majoring in English. I don't intend on attacking one's position solely on their use of a language, but being able to communicate well is an important skill for someone to have when involved in debate and important discussions.

I've heard many claims about gyroscopes, ships and buildings being seen from larger distances, and many other things show that the earth is flat. Unfortunately, many of these claims are made on flawed reasoning or poor evidence. More so, much of the well-disputed claims that have been shown to be wrong for various reasons continues to be passed off as truth in the flat-earth community.

Most tend to be of a religious background and seems to be an attempt to fit some sort of model that fits their religious views. But the globe earth model still remains to be the best one that describes what we observe in reality. I have limited space for my response here, but I've been having quite a few debates with people over on Youtube as of late. It's mind-boggling the ignorance of physics that people have sometimes.

Most of the points that the Pro side had made was about opinion rather than objective evidence. Intuition is not science, for instance.

Will have to
Posted by lemfish 9 months ago
lemfish
With regards to time zones; I done a little research and found that the few people that people that actually care to eliminate the world time zones are computer nerds/geeks/hackers & the like - hope I'm not being some sort of ism or skism - and I think that's because they're calculating time from an offset UTC and secondly maybe because they're little smarter in some sense - hope that one isn't a ism or skism either, if it is I'm sure it makes up for the last one.
The globaler said time zones couldn't be possible without a round earth. But I'd just like to add that it isn't really 12 hours back in time on the opposite side of the world because if that was the case then you wouldn't be able to have a conversation with somebody on the opposite side of the world. Time Zones are unnecessary. The primary reason for these different zones is so everyone around the globe can wake up in the ante meridiem (a.m.) and retire in the post meridiem (p.m.). This is an obstacle that shouldn't be too difficult for intelligent people to overcome. But there are a lot of people that like to have that same story read to them before the go sleep. Wake up people! Time zones are b.s and they are only there to make you think that you have a round world.
Posted by ErikSinn 1 year ago
ErikSinn
I can accept many FET arguments .... actually all, except those regarding the movement of the sun (and moon as well). The open issues are:
1. The spotlight of the sun should be visible all the time in the case of circling above the flat surface of the earth.
2.. Why sun appears to rise behind the horizon at the sunrise and goes down on the other side of the horizon on the sunset. If the sun suppose to circling around the north pole on the (still) relatively high altitude, dimming of the sun should appear higher in the sky and not on the horizon.

Additional question: I would like to hear the theory why both auroras (north and south) appears.
Posted by truth39 1 year ago
truth39
That image from Nasa is a composite image, which means it is composed of numerous images taken compiled into a spherical design. if Nasa can take pictures from space why is the only non-composite image of the earth from the Apallo11 picture with Africa on the face of the earth?
answers for Vibhu, according to my own falt earth theory.
1. nobody knows weve never been to another planet.
2. sun revolves around the north pole along with the moon, and is not the vast distance it is believed to be from earth it is actually much much closer.
3. Earth.
4. the sun revolves around the north pole, along the equator. https://en.wikipedia.org...
5. have to get back ,
6. i would need you to prove the understanding of gravity before i theorize about it. because to date yes we know an apple falls to the ground at 9.8 m per sec squared but id love to see proof why.
7. one possible explanation is the star Polaris coming between the sun and moon, because it is the north star and at the center of the flat earth model. a question of my own, how do the suns rays shine on the moon in=f the earth is between them? and remember yoyu gotta prove gravity before u can claim that the rays are bent with the ionosphere and gravity.
i hope to get answers because i a still developing my theory and def dont have all the answers. but this is how science works. joint effort to find truth.
Posted by Vibhu 1 year ago
Vibhu
Anti - atheist I would love to accept your flat earth story but I certainly I would like to get some answers first.
Q1.) All of the planets are flat?
Q2.) If sun revolves around the earth than it must not effect any other planet?
Q3.) You consider which one the celestial body bigger earth or the sun?(most important)
Q4.)No south pole so how come Antarctica is so cold because according to your theory only north pole exist?
Q.5) Your comments on earth magnetic field theory?
Q.6)Your comments on gravitational pull which is less on the equator and more on poles?
Q.7)How will you explain eclipse sun and moon both? And how come earth comes between moon and sun during a eclipse?
I hope you will answer my questions so that my queries are solved cause your society want us to believe you..waiting for your response
Posted by Jkrainert 3 years ago
Jkrainert
I call bull$hit on you being a physics major because you cannot get a b.a. In physics you get a B.S. ( bachelor of science) physics is not an art. Only bs (bull$hit degree) your earned is your fake back story.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Damn, I was going to Challenge Anti-atheist that the World Is Flat, where I was gonna take the Pro side.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
which side do you want to take Anti-Atheist?
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Sagey challenge me if you got the sagey balls
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Damn! Con must have used Vote bombs to win this, I was certain that Pro had it in the bag on Rational Logic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Anti-atheistsmoothpointsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give Pro the conduct for Con not providing a final round. If you think a debate is ridiculous, don't accept it. Moving along, Con dismantled all of Pro's arguments, other than those introduced into the final round, which is just argument spamming. Con pointed out not just the flaws, but the dishonesty of Pro's arguments. Of which Pro just ignored and spewed different arguments (more indication of argument spamming).
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Anti-atheistsmoothpointsTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: The debate is interesting with respect to showing the problem of defeating utterly ridiculous arguments. The proponent of the silly argument refuses to acknowledge any common ground of knowledge, so there is no agreement of a factual basis from which to argue. Also, it takes little space to set down dozens of ridiculous arguments, but the opponent has to start with a recitation of grade school to work up to all the interrelated facts. Anyway, NASA is an authority and cannot be dismissed without truly extraordinary proof, not just a crackpot book by one guy. The proof of a horizon is not rebutted by one old reference. Pro's odd fonts and layout, designed to be annoying, worked perfectly in that regard. BTW, there were no peer reviewed journals in 1904. Peer review is recent.