The Instigator
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

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 1 vote the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 94323
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (109)
Votes (1)

 

Commondebator

Pro

First round is acceptance.

My position is that the spherical Earth model is a much more accurate representation of our planet/reality. My opponent must provide arguments how the Flat Earth model is a more accurate representation of our planet/reality.

Burden of Proof is on BOTH sides.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Argument and Rebuttal
Round 3: Argument (optional) and Rebuttal
Round 4: Rebuttal and conclusion

Standard DDO rules apply to both sides

If either side runs out of room, please make the argument on a Google Drive and link the document. Absolutely no plagiarism. (Unless you're citing sources/using for evidence. "Putting it in your own words" is desired :P )

I ask my opponent to review this debate, before accepting, and request to make any changes as desired.
Edlvsjd

Con

Thanks for another opportunity to show that the realm we live on is indeed a flat one, and not a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference tilted at a 66.6 degree axis, wobbling, spinning at about 1,000 mph, travelling 66,000 mph on a 600,000 mile racetrack around the sun, which is spiralling with all planets in tow around the galaxy at some 500,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is rocketing at a preposterous 670,000,000 mph around the universe. This is a combined speed of 670,568,000 mph that no one has ever heard, felt, seen or measured. People hang from their toes, water and atmosphere is tightly velcroed to it's surface by some magical force nobody has ever proved while fish swim freely through the water, and birds and insects fly freely around the atmosphere with ease.

We have been given this scenario by modern day science from birth. From our first day of understanding, the globe has been drilled into our heads relentlessly. Turn on the television and watch any movie, globes everywhere. This is the definition of indoctrination. The average human has never seen the full earth from afar, but most people passively except it without question.

I assume by accepting this debate , my opponent knows I accept the challenge, so I will use this round for clarification, namely the curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

"If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Good luck to my opponent in proving this information. I will provide empirical and logical proof that this is impossible, I hope he can do the same.
Debate Round No. 1
Commondebator

Pro

C.1 Gravity

Intro to Gravity

Gravity is defined by the formula Fg=G*(M1*M2)/R2. Where G is the gravitational constant, M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects that are being gravitationally attracted, and R is the distance between the two objects.(1) This formula describes the force that attracts any two objects, not at the quantum level. The gravitational force can be used to explain the reason behind why planets orbit stars, and material can be held on to large planetary objects.

Evidence for Gravity

Although this part may not seem relevant to this debate, the gravitational force demands a spherical Earth. Therefore, the burden of proof is on me to provide the most convincing evidence for gravity, and it is up to my opponent to describe some alternate phenomenon to replace gravity, that fits the idea of a flat Earth.

I. Why objects fall down

My opponent must have a reason, besides the concept of gravity, as to why objects fall down in the first place. There must be some kind of force that attracts objects to Earth, and according the Universal Law of Gravitational Attraction, the equation for gravity accurately describes this effect. The gravitational formula explains as to why larger, more massive, celestial bodies would exert a much greater gravitational force than smaller, less massive objects. If M1 increases, and is larger than M2, while M2 and “R” remain constant, then the gravitational attraction will proportionally increase to M1. (1)

This effect describes as to why humans, and other objects on Earth will fall down to Earth itself. Because, even though those smaller objects are exerting a gravitational force, the gravitational effect from Earth is much greater, and thus the objects will “fall” to Earth and not vice versa.

“Flat Earthers” may try refuting this argument by claiming the Earth is a disc that constantly accelerates upwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. Although this will solve the problem as to why things fall down on Earth, it will not address the next few points.

II. Orbiting Moons, and other celestial bodies

Originally viewed by, Galileo Galilei, one can see the Moons of Jupiter revolving around the planet Jupiter. Galileo was able to see the moons around Jupiter by making significant improvements to the telescope, by increasing the magnification 20x. Because the multiple moons clearly revolve around Jupiter, this raises questions as to *why* the moons are going around, specifically Jupiter, in the first place. (2)


This is where the concept of gravity comes in. Gravity, as a force, accurately explains and describes how Moons and other celestial bodies orbit other, more massive celestial bodies. Even though the Moons are “falling” into Jupiter, they still have some velocity. This makes them “fall” and “miss” Jupiter at the same time, resulting in an orbit. This is known as the centripetal force. (3) My explanation of orbits was extremely simplified, and if my opponent likes, I can give a more in depth, mathematical representation of orbits, and how they relate to gravity, in the next round. Although, here is a graph that visually demonstrates my point.



III. Sattilites

Man-made satellites such as the ISS can be seen with the naked eye. However, using a telescope, a more detailed image of the ISS can be seen. Disregarding the ISS live stream, it would be impossible for the ISS to orbit a flat Earth. My claim is that the same force that keeps moons in an elliptical orbit can also be applied to the ISS. This would mean that the Earth would have to be spherical for that to occur. This image was taken from an amatuer telescope of the ISS:

The image was taken Munich through the 80cm telescope of the Public Observatory in Munich. There are a multitude of more images of the ISS being taken from a telescope on the ground. Now, the very existence of the ISS is up for debate. However, my opponent must refute, with evidence that the image seen of the ISS is actually something else.

Characteristics of a Sphere

One of the main points that disprove the Flat Earth model are the characteristics of a sphere. The sphere, as a geometrical object, has the least surface area for any given volume. This gives the sphere the lowest Surface area to Volume ratio. (SA:V) Here is a graph that shows this phenomenon:


If you take gravity into consideration, the gravitational pull occurs in ALL directions towards the center. This would mean that any piece of large rock would pull other pieces of large rocks towards it, in all directions, resulting in a three dimensional circle. (4)

Furthermore, using that phenomenon, Earth’s own gravitational forces would morph the flat disc into a sphere.


*My opponent may try refuting this argument by claiming that this model only works if gravity exists in the first place, however this is not the case*. If the Earth is somehow an accelerating disc, then according to Einstein's principle of Equivalence, (5) the same effect should occur. This is simply because the force due to acceleration (say, a disc going upwards) and gravity (say, a ball falling on a spherical earth) is almost impossible to differentiate.


C.2 Angular Size of the Sun


Another main point that disproves flat Earth is viewing the angular size of the sun. According to the Flat Earth Society, I am going to assume my opponent does not believe the sun is the alleged 93 million miles. Instead, I am assuming that we are debating that the sun is actually some 3,000 miles away and 32 miles wide.


If the sun were somehow circling a flat Earth, then the observable size of the sun should change drastically, *during the period of a day*. This is simply because objects seem to get smaller, the farther they get away. Using a computer animation, this is what the sun should look like on a flat Earth.


https://www.geogebra.org...

Furthermore, as the animation shows, the sun should never really appear to set. This makes sense because if we were on a flat plane, we should see the sun at all times. This is because the sun’s rays would be traveling in a straight line, and the sun should be above the horizon, no matter where your location is on Earth.


I will make additional arguments concerning shadows (and more) in my next round.


Citations:

  1. http://www.physicsclassroom.com...

  2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

  3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org...

  5. http://www.einstein-online.info...

Edlvsjd

Con

Thanks to my opponent for issuing the debate. I assumed the crux of the debate was to explore the shape of the earth, and not theoretical maths, which cannot be proved, and often have little to do with the reality we live in. My opponent states that since gravity is likely a real thing then the earth must be round. As I have yet to explore the realm of these theoretical maths in full, I will keep my arguments simple, so that the voters can understand, and vote accordingly. It is my intention to show that gravity is unlikely, while showing that the earth is flat empirically, thus negating my opponents entire argument.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

Intro to gravity
Gravity was developed as a way to make the ball earth work. People did not understand, and thought it quite foolish that water, people, and mountains could hang upside down until recently, after all, this goes against everyday observations completely. Even minds like Tesla, knew the idea was ignorant, and anyone who fell for it was completely deluded. Today, since we were indoctrinated from birth, and the idea is a staple in all education systems, we no longer question it's validity. But this theory of Gravity is not complete, the maths is super complex, and no man on earth truly understands it. Since it's birth gravity has had many people calling it an atrocity to the scientific method, not excluding it's own inventor. Sir Isaac Newton said:
"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."

Not only did Newton find his theory ridiculous, others have come forth rejecting the idea, like PBS NOVA (1), QUORA (2) GSU (3) Livescience (4) Livescience 2.0 (5) Astronomy Today (6) and Nature.com (7). Why? Because it doesn't exist! If it does, I would like some, can my opponent show me of picture of it? In the end, gravity is a great idea, but it must first depend on the earth being a ball to exist. After the proper rebuttals to my opponents other arguments, I will show that gravity does not exist by showing that the earth is indeed flat, up is up, down is down, and things with weight have a tendency to move to an equal or greater density, while things of lesser density rise to equilibrium. If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people.

Why objects fall down
"My opponent must have a reason, besides the concept of gravity, as to why objects fall down in the first place"

Simple, up is up, down is down, the molecules surrounding the apple were too sparse to hold the Apple up once it is detached from the tree branch. I could return the question to you: how does gravity cause everything to fall? How does the sun affect things billions of miles away? How do elliptical orbits work? If gravity gets stronger with proximity, then at the point when a planet or moon is closest to the object it is orbiting, what opposing, greatly increasing force prevents it from being pulled into the attracting object? And gravity cannot hold that object in it's orbit when it is furthest away from it unless it were greatly increasing, so the object should be flung out into space!

"the equation for gravity accurately describes this effect."

But it doesn't sufficiently explain it. Things on earth may follow the same rules for falling, so the maths add up, but this doesn't necessarily prove that the earth is round.

" The gravitational formula explains as to why larger, more massive, celestial bodies would exert a much greater gravitational force than smaller, less massive objects."

But as with any experiment, it should be scaleable, but it's not, no object can be shown to stick orbit, or be attracted to another. Here is 4 men in a car falling at the same rate as 1 person and a camera. (8) Note that things don't fall at a faster rate when closer to the earth either.

""Gravity is simply density and buoyancy.
People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air.
If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly.
Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling.
A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium.
In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums.
Critical density variation is "gravity.""
Darrell Dragoo

II. Orbiting Moons, and other celestial bodies
Comparing the ground beneath our feet to objects in the sky and their movements is like saying the billiard table is a ball because the billiard balls are, and that at any moment the table should fall into a giant pocket somewhere.

I do not propose that the earth is a disc or cylinder, it may be an infinite plane, so that objects in the sky may behave as they please, this doesn't affect the ground beneath our feet.

III. Satellites

The ISS is likely a plane. I have two reasons to believe this. a) Planes fly at around 7 miles high. At this height, we can barely make out a dot in the sky when one passes overhead. The ISS is said to be 249 miles out. The law of perspective shows that viewing the ISS, even with a telescopic lens would be near impossible.
b) Holographic technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since it's invention. It is entirely possible that the image is a hologram displayed under a U2 plane.
c) Temperatures at this altitude reach some 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit. Not many elements can withstand this heat.
Characteristics of a Sphere
The spherical earth model claims that the earth isn't a perfect sphere at all. "Oblate spheroid", "pear shaped", etc have been used to describe the shape of the earth, so my opponents claim that " the gravitational pull occurs in ALL directions towards the center" disproves his own argument.
" any piece of large rock would pull other pieces of large rocks towards it, in all directions"
Isn't the moon a large piece of rock? again, my opponent refutes the heliocentric model.

"Furthermore, using that phenomenon, Earth"s own gravitational forces would morph the flat disc into a sphere."
The earth may be an infinite plane.

C.2 Angular Size of the Sun
"the observable size of the sun should change drastically"

It does. (8)(9)(10)

"Furthermore, as the animation shows, the sun should never really appear to set."

If there were no such thing as perspective, the vanishing point, or convergence. (11) (12)

Contentions
C1 The sun and moon
First brought up by my opponent, is now being used against him. As we saw, the sun does in fact shrink in size. The dog cam (13) shows a very large sun, not to mention a perfectly flat horizon, rising to the eye's level. Also note the hotspot directly under the sun. It's not entirely clear what size or how far away the sun is, but it's clearly not 93 million miles away. The Go fast rocket launch (14) shows a very small moon, which was supposed to be over Australia, the opposite side of the "globe" from it's launch, which was done in Nevada.
C2 Chicago Skyline
Joshua Nowicki has been photographing Chicago (15) from 57 miles away. As the weatherman States this should be impossible, but I reject his claim that this is a mirage. There is no distortion, or inversion, common properties of all mirages.
All in all, while these maths may add up and be able to measure some things on earth and in the sky, it is not proof of a spherical earth.
(1) http://www.pbs.org...
(2) https://www.quora.com...
(3) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
(4) http://www.livescience.com...
(5) http://www.science20.com...
(6) http://www.astronomytoday.com...
(7) http://www.nature.com...
(8) https://youtu.be...
(9) https://youtu.be...
(10) https://youtu.be...
(11) http://whotfetw.com...
(12) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(13) https://youtu.be...
(14) https://youtu.be...
(15) https://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 2
Commondebator

Pro

https://docs.google.com...

My argument was 12,354 characters long. Although, if you just look at my arguments and ignore my opponent's quotations, citations, headings, and opening message, my argument would fit the character limit. Still, I decided to link the entire argument, as agreed upon the rules.

I ask my opponent to copy and paste the entire argument and paste it to some forum, or google drive, and make it available to the public. That way, it will ensure that I have not altered my argument in any way, after posting it. That is to make sure this debate remains fair.
Edlvsjd

Con

https://docs.google.com...

Thanks to my opponent for this stipulation in the rules, these explanations can get very lengthy, especially when I'm trying to undo 500 years of brainwashing. Going back and forth from Docs was challenging, but I hope I haven't dropped any arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Commondebator

Pro

Alright, so not including the citations, my character count is 10,901. There's still a lot of links and quotes in my argument, that are included in the 10,901 figure. Meaning, my sole argument should fit the 10k character limit. Regardless, I will be posting the link. And again, I will be messaging my opponent the copy and pasted argument to make sure I did not alter it in any way.

https://docs.google.com...
Edlvsjd

Con

https://docs.google.com...

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
109 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 5 months ago
Edlvsjd
The earth hasn't moved an inch since it's creation, you're listening to shills stay away from tfes, you sound like an idiot.
Posted by Zaephou 5 months ago
Zaephou
Here's something, flat-earthers outright ignore gravity and say it does not exist, since if it did, the whole flat-earth would fall apart since matter under the influence of a large gravitational attraction will come together to form a sphere. They say what we experience as gravity is the earth accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.81m/s^2 and it can do this since special relativity says that objects can accelerate infinitely without reaching the speed of light.

But this is a lie, special relativity actually dictates that an object can accelerate infinitely without reaching the speed of light, if the object's magnitude of acceleration decreases the closer it is to the speed of light.

To evaluate on the bogus that is the flat-earth lie, you may reach 299,792,458 m/s (1 m/s less than the speed of light) at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. However, you cannot continue accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, because in 1 second you would be going 8.81 m/s faster than the speed of light. So, your acceleration would have to decrease, so that it would have to be less than the speed of light minus your current speed. Since the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, and the person's speed in this example is 299,792,457 m/s, the difference between the two is 1 m/s. So, the new acceleration would have to be less than 1 m/s^2. It could be 0.9 m/s^2 (although it may not be this), so that 1 second later the person would be traveling at 299,792,457.9 m/s, and the next second's acceleration would have to be less than 0.1 m/s^2. Therefore, an object can theoretically accelerate forever, but it cannot accelerate at the same magnitude forever. This means that, if the Earth is constantly accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2, after a certain amount of time it should approach the speed of light and "gravity" should appear to get rapidly weaker. Do we experience this?

Good luck rebutting.
Posted by Zaephou 5 months ago
Zaephou
This argument makes me cringe

Why don't we feel the speed of the earth moving? seriously!

Ugh, at least pro is winning, good to see scientific/intellectual inferiority losing
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KthulhuHimself// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented an abundance of different pieces of evidence that Con did not properly address or refute, such as the argument stemming from the sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address), and the argument regarding the ISS' visibility (which Con attempted to refute, yet provided no evidence for his claims (that holograms could occur at such a height, where the atmosphere is not thick) and did not address the counter-rebuttal); furthermore, every piece of evidence presented by Con was properly refuted by Pro (such as restoring the burden of proof regarding the "infinite plane" argument, or explaining why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage); hence points for the best argument go to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly assesses specific points made by both sides and explains why they were or were not successful based on the accompanying evidence.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 6 months ago
Edlvsjd
"sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address)"

besides the university source that says atmosphere will magnify the sun's size? dishonest vote

"regarding the ISS' visibility"

I've stated logically that the ISS should not be reflecting the light from the sun at night, since it is in the E arths shadow? more b.s. did you even read the last round?

"why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage"

Another university study that states mirages ALWAYS have inversions? Which my opponent changes his stance on in the last round? Obviously a biased vote will report again
Posted by KthulhuHimself 6 months ago
KthulhuHimself
I recast the vote; smaller, this time.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KthulhuHimself// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G isn't sufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain why one side's arguments were difficult to read, and not just pick out a few errors as a reason to award points. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. There was clearly a variety of sources presented by both sides, yet the voter reduces Con's sources to YouTube videos and Pro's sources to peer-reviewed articles. While this characterizes some of the sources they used, it is cherry-picking sources to award points. The voter is required to compare all sources made by each side, and not just the few they liked or didn't like.
************************************************************************
Posted by Edlvsjd 6 months ago
Edlvsjd
haters gonna hate!
Posted by KthulhuHimself 6 months ago
KthulhuHimself
===RFD===

The instigator had practically no grammar or spelling mistakes, whilst the contender did exhibit a few (such as confusing "its" with "it's"); rewarding Pro with the points for grammar.

As for the arguments; Pro presented an abundance of different pieces of evidence that Con did not properly address or refute, such as the argument stemming from the sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address), and the argument regarding the ISS' visibility (which Con attempted to refute, yet provided no evidence for his claims (that holograms could occur at such a height, where the atmosphere is not thick) and did not address the counter-rebuttal); furthermore, every piece of evidence presented by Con was properly refuted by Pro (such as restoring the burden of proof regarding the "infinite plane" argument, or explaining why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage); hence points for the best argument go to Pro.

All of Pro's sources were peer-reviewed articles, whilst the only of Con's sources that actually supported his claims were YouTube videos; because Pro's sources were peer-reviewed, their content is more reliable, and because Con's are not; points for the more reliable sources go to the instigator.
Posted by Commondebator 6 months ago
Commondebator
"My opponent gives measurements used to predict the rate of fall for objects on earth, and calls it proof that we live on a ball, and demanding I explain why we aren't floating around"

Yea, now do you see the fundamental flaw in your buoyancy argument? I'm using that as an argument because you still can't show WHY objects fall down, using buoyancy, without including gravity! Buoyancy itself includes the gravitational variable, and if there's no gravity, there's no buoyant force. What you're describing is the force when objects move throw a fluid, nothing else. The "sparsity" of atoms doesn't mean anything unless you can show the FORCE that makes those atoms displace and fall down! You can't use your claim as an argument....WHY would those atoms "get out the way"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KthulhuHimself 6 months ago
KthulhuHimself
CommondebatorEdlvsjdTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented an abundance of different pieces of evidence that Con did not properly address or refute, such as the argument stemming from the sun's angular size (which Con did not properly address), and the argument regarding the ISS' visibility (which Con attempted to refute, yet provided no evidence for his claims (that holograms could occur at such a height, where the atmosphere is not thick) and did not address the counter-rebuttal); furthermore, every piece of evidence presented by Con was properly refuted by Pro (such as restoring the burden of proof regarding the "infinite plane" argument, or explaining why the Chicago skyline is most definitely not a mirage); hence points for the best argument go to Pro.