The Earth is mostly spherical.
Debate Rounds (5)
In a stunning feat, Edl managed to defeat me in this topic a few days ago. Naturally, my humiliation has compelled me to ask for a rematch.
This time around, I still want things to seem fresh. As such, I will not be making the same arguments as I did previously (mostly, anyway). Most importantly, I will not be spending all my time on gravity.
On gravity, I'll say this. I'll assume there is *some force* that pulls things toward the center of Earth. Whether this is called buoyancy or gravity is unimportant to me. In the opponent's model, he will explain buoyancy as being responsible for the downforce experienced on Earth. I will call this downforce gravity.
(Ie, I will not be making any argument of the type, "Gravity exists, therefore something else, therefore the Earth is spherical.")
1. BoP is shared. Whichever side presents the "best case" for the shape of the Earth will be voted the winner.
2. Arguments must be made in-round. (Referencing a source to substantiate a point is acceptable. Referencing an external argument is not.) The one exception has to do with videos. Videos can be very informative, but please keep the "total video time" for all sources in a single round under 30 minutes. At the point where you post an hour long video, you've moved from providing substantiating evidence to evidence that is a self-contained argument. (If you must post long videos, please reference specific time stamps that can be referred to. I assure you, neither the voters nor I will watch a 45 minute documentary.)
3. No source is assumed "automatically" valid or invalid. All sources are open to further assessment.
I hope the opponent will allow me a second opportunity to defend the notion of a spherical Earth.
Regarding round structure, the opponent can either just accept in his opening speech or he can present his case. Regardless, I will be presenting my case at the opening of Round 2.
I accept this debate on the agreed ground that we start this debate where we left off from the prequel. I will post a link to this debate, and go over some key points from the debate. Gratitude goes to my opponent for the relief from any overuse of "big g", and acknowledge that I will not have to refute it anymore, nor any proofs based entirely on big g existing. I respect my opponents time restraints for research, and will give timestamps for any points in any videos I provide as source material when available. I also agree to my opponents 3rd rule for sources. I would now like to point out that if I prove that the earth isn't spinning, this in turn proves a flat earth (if my opponent agrees).
In our last debate, I brought up 3 empirical proofs of a flat, stationary earth.
Distances sighted. A gentleman named Joshua Nowicki is tweeting photos of the Chicago skyline from over 60 m away. This should not be possible on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. Globalists blame it on atmosphere and call it a mirage. A time lapse has proven that it is not by definition, a mirage which lasts only a short amount of time. If my opponent agrees with the numbers from our last debate, there should be no other way to explain this, other than a MUCH larger earth, or a relatively flat one. Just like the Flintstones have been saying all along.
Reflections of light on water
I think this proof was also self explanatory, in that light cannot be produced in such a manner on any sized ball. However anyone holding a long, flat reflective material up to the eye facing a light source will see something similar to this.
My opponent hasn't given a suitable reason for why all flights from Delta between Sydney and s. America make two stops in North America.
More proof of a flat, stationary earth.
For years, pilots have depended on simple, mechanical gyroscopes to produce an artificial horizon. Gyroscopes maintain a constant axis relative to that which it is started to space. This would be impossible if they were travelling over a ball. The more distance covered, the more the gyroscope should roll back. For example,a plane taking off from North America headed to China, when arriving at it's destination, should have an upside down artificial horizon because it has rotated 180 degrees. Besides the fact that modern astronomy says we are spinning, wobbling, and revolving in a spiral motion at preposterous speeds. Would gyroscopes even be reliable? What's more, experiments are being conducted with gyroscopes over long periods of time and no movement was discovered at all. If the earth spins 45 degrees in 3 hours, the gyroscope should roll against this supposed spin. Since electronic gyroscopes are relatively inexpensive, and anyone can perform this experiment, this can be considered proof that the earth does not move, and is hardly an oblate spheroid.
Star trails like this would be impossible on a ball that was spinning, wobbling rotating around the sun, which is rotating around the milky way, which is flying around the universe. These perfect circles around a central immobile star can't be explained by modern astronomy and are proof of a flat earth and that the stars are rotating, not us.
My opponents only argument for a globe last debate was gravity might exist. Hope he can prove that globe for me this debate.
I'm very glad the opponent has accepted! As he mentioned, this will be a continuation of the previous debate. (http://www.debate.org...)
I will briefly sum up arguments made for and against a flat Earth, then address them in more detail. This summation covers all arguments for a flat Earth and all arguments I will be continuing from the previous debate. My new arguments will not be outlined here, as they have yet to be made.
Previous Flat Earth Arguments
1. Distances sighted defy notion of spherical earth.
2. Reflections on water defy ocean curvature.
3. Flight paths indicate a flat earth.
4. Gyroscopes remain steady during Earth traversal, implicating flat earth.
Previous Spherical Earth Arguments
[The following are the arguments I am keeping from the previous debate.]
1. No "edge of earth" ever documented.
2. International conspiracy highly unlikely.
Upcoming Spherical Earth Arguments
1. Satellites must exist and must orbit a spherical earth.
2. Aerospace students learn spherical earth mathematics.
3. Ockam's Razor hedges toward spherical earth
4. Timezones and the nature of the sun.
This should be sufficient for this round. I may introduce new arguments in the next round and my opponent certainly has that right as well. I honestly enjoy considering flat earth arguments and I hope more are presented.
Rebuttal of Opponent's Case
1. Distances sighted defy spherical earth.
I believe I did cover this point quite well in the previous debate.
It would be difficult to call the skyline a mirage if it consistently appeared. However, there are many times in which the weather is nominal and the image fails to show up. More importantly, there are many occasions in which the image does take the more common form of a mirage -- in that it appears inverted in both the horizontal and vertical directions, as the image in the link provided shows. 
If the Earth were flat, one would expect to be able to always see the skyline from 60 miles, weather permitting. As my evidence demonstrates, this is clearly not the case. As such, this particular skyline mirage indicates that Earth must have a curvature, since the city is not always visible (even in good weather.)
2. Reflections of sun on water.
The opponent is basically saying that the sun's rays on water should look different if the ocean actually had a curvature. This claim, however, is not substantiated.
Looking at the photo provided, we see the sun setting over the horizon, producing a linear, gradiated line of reflection which extends toward the camera. This is the expected behavior of light in both a flat and spherical earth model. The following image illustrates this:
Note that since the sun is well above the Earth, the reflection occurs despite the curvature, or lack thereof, of the Earth. Also notice that this reflection happens even under the dramatically increased curvature in my "spherical earth" example.
For a more practical example, remember that you can clearly see a distorted image of yourself in a funhouse mirror. Despite the curve in the surface, a reflection still occurs. The sun's image would also be slightly distorted, but the intensity of the light along with the relatively small curvature of the Earth at normal viewing distances makes that distortion unobvious.
3. Flight paths.
To start, the direct path between two destinations is often impractical.
The first deals with fuel. Large passenger aircraft have a limited supply of fuel and can only go so far before needing to refuel. This is why flights over particularly long stretches of ocean are uncommon.
The second, and more critical explanation, deals with economic efficiency. Flights are meant to appeal to as many people as possible, so as to always keep the plane full of people. The number of people wishing to go from Sydney, Australia to South America is likely never enough to fill a plane. As such, making a stop at LAX before heading south would be economically feasible.
Rich nations tend to use airfare significantly more often than poorer nations. This means that the demand for convenient flights is often high in North America, China and Western Europe, whereas people from Africa, South America and Easter Europe will not fly as often. As such, airlines want to pick up passengers as much as possible in these countries with heavy airline usage.
Gyroscopes are fascinating pieces of technology. I'll here explain how a gyroscope works and what this says about the opponent's arguments.
A gyroscope is basically a wheel affixed to rotational structures that allow the gyroscope to all places in a 3D space. A gyroscope is useful in that it tends to maintain its particular orientation in space. Why?
Conservation of Angular Momentum, of course. Whenever something is rotating, it has a tendency to maintain its position so long as the rotation persists. This is why a top remains upright while spinning, even though it does not (easily) stand upright when it is at rest.
Similarly, gyroscopes spin at high RPM's so as to maintain position.  This high rotation speed, along with the Conservation of Momentum, explains why gyroscopes do not "wobble about".
There are a variety of different types of gyroscopes, but here we'll look at "space gyros" and "Earth gyros". According to the referenced source, a space gyro "moves in all three planes and is stabilized to a point in space". An Earth gyro "moves in all three planes, but is held in one plane by Earth's gravity." Airplanes use Earth gyros.
While I won't be making gravity-specific arguments myself, gravity is the rebuttal to this point. This "downforce" that we feel on Earth stabilizes an Earth gyro in one plane. Regardless of what causes this downforce, the force itself insures that the gyro's direction is parallel to the direction of the downforce.
On a flat Earth, one would expect to see an Earth gyro remain unchanged if you fly in a straight line. Similarly, the same effect would be seen if the Earth were spherical, since planes remain flying perpendicular to the direction of the downforce, essentially moving the plane about the center of the Earth just as the gyro is doing.
Space gyros point to some fixed point "infinitely" distant, while earth gyros point directly away from the center of the planet.
For the sake of space, I'll cover my "previous debate arguments" in the following round. Or maybe not at all. I'm unsure. Here, I'll present my fresh, new arguments.
1. Satellites exist and require a spherical Earth to function properly.
Let it be assumed that at least a few satellites exists. I refer to the ISS, which can be seen from the Earth with a telephoto lens, and cell phone satellites, which are required for cellular service to work.
In the spherical model, a satellite remains in orbit without needing to consume energy. In order for the flat earth model to be correct, there would need to be a way for satellites to orbit without consuming energy. (We know satellites do not consume great deals of energy for altitude purposes, since these satellites have remained in orbit so long.)
This means that it cannot be said they orbit in a "circle" along the face of the planet, since that would require a constant acceleration to maintain direction. (In other words, they'd need to constantly turn.) So this is not possible.
An orbit around the "edge" of the flat plate would create make seeing a satellite from a centrally located position impossible. (Yet we can see the ISS from many different places on Earth when it comes around.) An orbit "above and around" the flat earth would be equally as impossible, given that the perihelion (the point in which the orbit is closest to the Earth) would need to be very large, putting the satellite too far away for efficient communication whenever it comes above the centers of the flat part.
2. The way aerospace and orbital mechanics is taught.
Let us assume that the Earth is flat. We know that the people who make our satellites, rockets and planes are college-educated engineers. We furthermore know that these students are taught according to the spherical earth model. Ie, the practical educational requirement for building an aircraft assumes round earth
If the Earth were actually flat, none of these things would work. Rockets would be sent up, turn toward a prograde velocity vector, then smack into the side of the flat earth. Firing retrograde to lower the orbit would also cause a sat to hit the earth. Even the fuel put into launchers assumes that one can take advantage of a spherical earth. These rockets wouldn't have enough juice to get anywhere if aerospace engineers were wrong.
3. Timezones indicate a spherical Earth.
It is currently night here. If I call my friend in Paris, it will be light there.
The opponent might claim that the sun is very near Earth. Ignoring known facts about the heat of the sun and what this would do to life on earth, this still doesn't explain local lighting. Fire (the sun is a big blob of what is essentially fire) produces light in all directions. As such, a ball (or flat disc) of fire would radiate light to all parts of the planet, as opposed to a spot light, which emits light directionally due to radial occlusion surfaces.
It cannot be said this is "crepuscular ray action", since crepuscular rays are caused by clouds and it still turns night, even without a cloud in the sky. It cannot be said that there is some disc with holes in it blocking the sunlight in some areas, since we can clearly see distant stars in the night sky.
I've run out of space. I'll cover Ockam's next round, but it was not important enough to include here. I've adequately shown the opp's arguments to be false or a misunderstanding and presented evidence for a round earth. I look forward to round 3.
1 - http://www.freep.com...;
2 - http://www.experimentalaircraft.info...;
Thanks to my opponent for a new debate on the subject of the shape of the earth. As my opponent loves to hear, (and refute) flat earth proof, I love to present it. Let's skip the potatoes and go straight for the meat. I would like to remind my opponent and our voters that the fat earth awakening is fairly new, with most of the research and experiments coming in the last two to three years. There are many views on the flat earth and how it works, most of the views stemming from either shills like those found on tfes forums and just misunderstood specifics of the model,
Rebuttals to my case
1. Distances sighted
My opponent still holds that the images Mr Joshua presents are mirages. This is confusing, in that he entirely ignores the time lapse(1) I presented. While mirages may occur occasionally,(2) they do always, as in the picture my opponent provides, appear inverted, semi-transparent, and distorted. The fact that a mirage of the city can appear does not negate my proof. I honestly thought this was resolved in our last debate. The fact that the image has been captured multiple times, let alone the time lapse, at all times of the day, but especially after the sun goes down, proves that this can't be a mirage. As my opponent points out: "I believe I did cover this point quite well in the previous debate." The debate was a loss for him, and unless my opponent can otherwise explain this image, the proof still stands.
2 Reflections of light on water
Not only would the sun's reflection be completely different, all reflections on water would appear differently. If the waters of earth had a convex surface, as my curvature statement from the last debate explains, reflections would not be identical to what was being reflected. Convex mirrors produce a shorter reflection. All one needs to prove this is a spoon. Although the surface of the earth is much larger, and the curvature not as noticeable, the same effect should be seen. You cannot get a perfect reflection on a curved surface. Had my opponent performed the simple experiment, he would see this. I have provided an actual picture of this being performed, instead of a drawing as my my opponent does. In the spherical earth model, the sun is actually below the viewers feet even before it sets. Does it seem when you are watching the sun set, that the sun is below your feet?
3. Flight paths
My opponent offers two possible explanations as to why flights from Delta go 5,000 miles northward on a path to a southern continent from a southern continent.
Let it be known that the distance between Chile and Sydney is, (according to your model) the distance between Chile and New Zealand is roughly the same distance as from Chile to LAX this being a stop off point in this flight. So my question is, why go 5,600 miles in the wrong direction, when a perfectly good refueling stop is on the way, at about the same distance? You are essentially adding over 5,000 miles to the journey? While this proof isn't exactly empirical, and since the flat earth community isn't exactly sure what the map actually looks like, so it could be wrong, though it sure should raise an eyebrow or two.
b) economic efficiency
My rebuttal is not unlike the one above. How is it more economically feasible to travel twice the distance, to pick another few passengers up?
My opponent brings up that there are two types of gyroscopes, one being a space gyroscope, the other, an earth gyroscope. Upon investigation, (trying to figure out the difference between the two) I bring up the definition of a space gyro as:
The simplest is the free or space gyroscope that is completely free to move in all three planes in relation to its mounting system.
The spin axis is tied by the earth's gravity to remain in the earth vertical.
e.g. Artificial Horizon.
It also has the freedom of movement in three planes.
It seems the only difference is the placement of big g in there! Both gyros are allowed to rotate on 3 axis. But the "earth gyro" supposedly remains fixed "due to the earth's gravity". How? What sort of change must be done to account for gravity? Without having to disprove gravity (again) I'll approach this from a different angle this is convenient for my opponent in that this information was probably added recently as the system found this error in their model, we know this because this training video says otherwise, before "space travel", in 1960.
Rebuttal of my opponents "fresh arguments "
1. Satellites exist and require a spherical Earth to function properly.
We can't assume that at least a few satellites exist. I will now attempt to disprove satellites. My opponent's drawing is comical, but understandable, considering the thinking that indoctrination has led the masses to do.
My opponent's proof of satellites is as followed:
We can see the ISS.
Many people can follow the ISS through one of a few "tracking" sites. These are websites that are essentially supposed to show exactly where the ISS IS ON A map at any given time. This is how people are able to find the ISS in order to see it. If one were to pull up one of these sites however, and change the date and time on the device they are using, they can control the ISS. This proves that the ISS isn't being tracked at all, and is one proof against the ISS.
Furthermore, The ISS appearance is strangely similar in appearance to another high flying craft, U2 spy planes. Perhaps a hologram is being projected on or from the bottom, it doesn't look like it is reflecting light to me, it appears self luminescent. It is often said that the ISS can be seen with the naked eye (if only as a tiny light). This is ridiculous to say the least, as the average Boeing 747 can only be seen as the same. These planes are about only 7 miles away, and one would only see one as a tiny dot, some planes, if no chemtrails are being spewed, can't be seen at all! Now the ISS is "orbiting" at a distance of about 250 miles from the earth, and planes, from only 7 miles above the earth can only be seen using a telephoto lens. How is this possible? I can't be the only critically thinking person here that knows this is just dumb.
Thirdly, the ISS is said to be smack dab in the middle of the thermosphere. Temperatures here are said to reach 2,500 degrees. There are few materials that can last minutes, much less 18 years in these temps. Why aren't satellites glowing hot balls of metal? Because they don't exist. If you think that cell towers aren't sufficient enough to handle cellular phones, triangulation (gps) etc, you are mistaken. Why would they abandon tower communications in favor of a more expensive route, such as satellites? Wouldn't it make sense to put up more towers instead?
2. The way aerospace and orbital mechanics is taught.
Firstly this is hardly empirical evidence, as most of us are not satellite engineers, including our voters, so we have to look at this proof in a skeptical light. I will address a key point from my opponents argument now.
"If the Earth were actually flat, none of these things would work. Rockets would be sent up, turn toward a prograde velocity vector, then smack into the side of the flat earth"
This is exactly what happens, except the side of the Flat Earth is a body of water. Specifically an area labelled the Bermuda Triangle. This is mainly the reason the public is discouraged to enter here, likely false flags and government experiments are being performed here also. If rockets need to reach escape velocity to escape earth's gravitational pull, why then do they wait until the rocket is miles away from the earth, where gravity is not as strong to turn and achieve this speed? Shouldn't it be done instantly in order to take off? Where is the logic in this?
3. Time zones indicate a spherical Earth.
My opponent's assumption that my claiming the sun is not almost 100 million miles away is correct, but his "facts" about the heat of the sun are false. If the sun was 93 million miles away, there should be a uniform temperature for the earth. The equator is known to be the warmest spot on earth. The earth is at a tilt in his model, so the equator should be invariably colder and hotter in respect to the rest of the world. What's more, go only a few thousand miles north or south and we get freezing temps. How does only a few thousand miles make such a difference in temperature when the source is almost 100 million miles away? How is it summer when we are closest to the earth? There is evidence for my claim. Videos of the sun going toward the horizon have been analyzed, and show a definite shrinking of the sun. (1) Time lapses show the same thing. A shrinking sun is a smoking gun proof that it is close. High altitude (2) balloon launch videos show the sun to be several times the size it appears from the ground, as well as a sunspot directly below the sun. Videos of the sun from official sources show a blazing sun, one that is burning , but filtered and magnified videos (3) from other sources show a bright disc, minus the flames coming off of the sides of it. In conclusion, the sun is only a fraction of the distance claimed by modern astronomy, and but a fraction of it's size. It follows the law of perspective, as does everything known to man, and only goes far enough away from a certain point that it (and it's light) is no longer visible. At a certain distance, it reaches the vanishing point.
I'll attend to the opponent's case, then defend my own.
1. Distances sighted.
In the video provided, we see that the skyline flits in and out of existence, despite the weather remaining nominal. If this were not a mirage, the image should not appear, disappear and reappear again in the manner that it does.
Mirages occur when the temperature of the ground is warmer than the temperature of the air above it. Since light travels at different speeds in different temperatures of air, a refraction takes place that causes images to be seen when no object exists there. "Night time" mirages can occur, especially near bodies of water which have retained the heat of the day.
Given this, there is no scientific reason the image cannot be a mirage. More importantly, we know that photographs have been taken of the skyline (like I provided in R2) in which the mirage was in its more typical, inverted form. The opponent has failed to explain how it is possible to take said photo under the flat earth model.
2. Reflection of Light on Water
The opponent basically says that the sun's reflection should look "completely different" on the curved surface of the ocean. This is unsubstantiated, however. Looking even at the image provided by the opponent, it is clear that the reflection of the sun does not look like the sun itself, but is minorly stretched.
Subtle stretching is exactly what one would expect to see from a reflection occuring on a slightly convex surface. Note the image I provided and how it demonstrates the way in which light rays hit the ocean and reflect into one's eyes.
The "experiment" posted by the opponent doesn't seem to prove anything. The images look very similar, but that is because reflections still occur regardless of how curved a reflective surface is. The magnitude of the curve represents the magnitude of the "stretching" of the image. In Earth's case, the magnitude of curvature is very small.
3. Flight Paths
Fuel: This example was to prove that not all straight flight paths are feasible. With the particular example of Chile and Sydney, fuel may not need to be a significant consideration.
Economic efficiency: To answer the opponent's question -- yes, it is more feasible to travel twice the difference to pick up new passengers.
A Boeing 747 costs about $140,000 to fly its max distance of 6,000 miles. The distance from Sydney to Chile is about 7,000 miles. This necessitates a flight stop, and will cost about $160,000.
Sydney --> LAX is about 7,500 miles. LAX --> Chile is 5,500 miles. This puts the total flight distance at 13,000 miles, which is indeed nearly double. This means the fuel cost is around $320,000.
A plane ticket for that distance is about $1,000, meaning that a direct Sydney --> Chile flight would require 160 people for the airline to break even. There simply are not enough people who want to make this flight. The are significantly more people who want to go from Sydney to the US though. From there, a new set of passengers can leave off to Chile.
Ie, you can get three to four times as many passengers by travelling the extra distance, meaning that you can get significantly more profit.
The "basic" gyro behaves like a space-gyro, in that it will maintain its position.
An "earth-gyro" is a more complicated device and is often called a attitude indicator. It is essentially a gyroscope that contains a "pendulous rod" (pendulum) at the bottom.  This weighted bottom effectively locks the horizontal plane of the gyroscope perpendicular to the direction of downward force (gravity). The weight of the pendulum is greater than the amount of angular momentum that is conserved, thus insuring that the gyro remains level with the horizontal plane.
So, to simply answer the question -- a space gyro does not have a pendulous rod, an earth gyro does.
The opponent has a few claims as to why he believes satellites are a myth. I'll address each.
The ISS tracking sites change the position of the ISS if you change date/time on your computer.
Well, yes. The (quite simple) mathematics behind orbiting objects allows one to know exactly where a satellite is if you know its orbit and its position at even one time in history.
Therefore, if you know the nature of the orbit the ISS is on (we do, since we set it into that orbit) and its position at at least one point in time (again, we do) -- you can calculate its position at any other time. If you change your computer time to May 16th, 1995, the program will tell you where the ISS was at that time.
The ISS looks kind of like a U2 plane.
I mean, I don't think it does. There is a clear difference between the satellite in the pictures the opponent provides and the U2 plane. The shape of the vessels are entirely different. More importantly, we have amateurs who have taken very detailed shots of the ISS.  In these photos the ISS looks exactly as the ISS is purported to look and noticeably looks nothing like a plane.
Why can you see the ISS if it's so far away?
The opponent says that passenger jets only 7 miles away look very smile, whereas the ISS can clearly be seen as a dot of light. The simple answer is this -- one is reflecting large amounts of light, the other is not. The ISS has very large solar panels that reflect great amounts of light, whereas passenger jets generally consist of non-reflective material.
The slightly more complicated answer is that an object's apparent size decrease is inversely porportional to its distance away. In other words, if you move an object 10 m from you and it appears to get 3mm smaller, moving it another 10 meters away will yield an apparent size change of less than 3 mm. Even though the ISS is 20 times further than a passenger jet, it will not appear 20 times smaller.
It should be too hot for satellites.
Again, simple answer -- radiators.
More complicated answer -- the thermosphere is hot. Ab object will absorb radiated heat to a point, then radiate excess heat outward. This occurs once a certain temperature is reached, called the "radiative equilibrium temperature". When you put a radiator on an object, you effectively lower this temperature, since the object is capable of radiating more heat.
All artificial satellites have built in radiators. The ISS in particular has radiators on the backside of the large solar panel arrays. This allows them to not melt or burn despite the heat of the thermosphere. Entire books have been written on the subject , as heat management is important in any mechanical system's design.
Cell towers are sufficient
I made a mistake here earlier. Cellular service only uses towers. Satellite phones use satellites. These are wide spread enough such that anyone could use them and many do use them. They would not be able to function without satellites (like how they can function in the middle of the ocean.) Without satellites, this functioning would be impossible.
2. Aerospace Textbooks
This point isn't empircal -- but it is entirely logical. What's more, it's relatively easy to understand the basics and any voter could easily see how the basic pillars upon which aerospace is taught assume a spherical earth.
The opponent basically says next that launched satellites actually go into the Bermuda Triangle. This is one of the few points I will not entertain without evidence or logic to support it. The claim is ludicrous and needs to be proved or it will continue to be considered ludicrous.
The opponent then asks why rockets wait to turn until they are miles above the earth. The answer -- it is more efficient to do it this way. When you turn in the lower atmosphere, you will necessarily spend more time there, incurring all the wastes of friction caused by the atmosphere. If you wait until you are in a thinner atmosphere, you are able to turn and get into orbit using less fuel. Fuel is a huge concern in rocket design.
3. Time zones
The opponent claims, without evidence, that a distant sun should cause a uniform temperature on Earth. Basic principles of physics show this to be untrue. The sun heats the Earth entirely via radiation, since the other two forms of heating (convection and conduction) require a non-vaccuum. Clearly when one side of the earth is facing the sun, it is being irradiated, whereas the non-lit side is not being radiated.
If one section of the Earth (like the equator) faces the sun for a greater percentage of the time than another area (like the poles), you'll find that the more-lit section will generally be hotter. This makes sense, consideration it receives greater radiation than non-lit areas. Summer and winter only exist because hemispheres receive different amounts of sunlight over the year. This is why winters have longer nights -- less sun is received.
The next claim is that the sun shrinks when heading toward the horizon. The only evidence for this is a video. Please note that it is impossible to "eyeball" the actual size of the sun during the day, since it is so bright that lens flare (eye lens) can look like part of the sun. As the sun sets, you see less of its light (since it is largely being absorbed by the atmosphere), reducing the lens flare and leading one to see the actual boundaries of the sun.
The opponent literally offers no empirical evidence that the sun is very close to the Earth.
I've demonstrated the flaws in the opponent's case and corrected his misunderstanding regarding my own. I look forward to the next round.
2 - http://www.experimentalaircraft.info...;
3 - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...;
4 - https://books.google.com...;
1. Distances sighted
"In the video provided, we see that the skyline flits in and out of existence, despite the weather remaining nominal. If this were not a mirage, the image should not appear, disappear and reappear again in the manner that it does."
My opponent may have to turn the brightness up on the computer he watches the time lapse on. While not very clear early in the video, it is still visible as a silhouette. This is due to the moisture that is present in the air everywhere at this time of the day. Not once in the whole time lapse is the image of Chicago inverted, which is the most common of the properties of a mirage. Once again, the type of mirage that the mainstream has labeled this as is supposedly a rare occurrence. If it can be seen all day, it isn't a rare occurrence. I'm left with nothing left to do but use a mainstream source.
There are two types of mirages. Inferior mirages and superior mirages. As you can see from the left photo, the mirage is inverted, and directly above the landmass. Similar to a mirror suspended over the island. You'll notice a definite line across, this inverted image is sometimes magnified. The inferior mirage is an image produced underneath the object. this car is not over any curvature, the road has just turned into a mirror due to the temperatures. On a clear evening, you can see Chicago, this is not a mirage. Sometimes, on rare occurrences, the atmospheric conditions might be just right, and the picture you have provided will happen, which is a mirage, that is inverted.
Reflections of light on water
"Subtle stretching is exactly what one would expect to see from a reflection occurring on a slightly convex surface"
This statement is false, unless the "one" was unfamiliar with a spoon. Concave mirrors stretch, and convex mirrors shrink, however, when close enough to the flat or concave reflections, both will stretch, as I have demonstrated, which anyone can do with any reflective, flexible material.
My opponent holds that all flights from the two points mentioned go 5,000 miles in the wrong direction to fill up the plane, and pick up more passengers. Where my opponent gets this information from is a mystery. Surely some of these flights would be full enough not to have to cause the inconvenience of a flight that takes twice as long, and burn another tank of gas to... save money... right. Please provide a source for the claim:
"you can get three to four times as many passengers by travelling the extra distance, meaning that you can get significantly more profit. "
Thanks to my opponent for his explanation of the difference between earth gyros and space gyros. It seems the training manual got entirely ignored though. While searching for "pendulous rod " I could find very little, (an old Google book was it) and my opponents source is a dead link. Without being able to further investigate this, I can't a assume this information is correct. There are many experiments going on right now since this information was released, none have the illusive "pendulous rod " my opponent has served as an excuse. These experiments involve a basic electronic gyroscope that should, if the earth were spinning, rotate against this alleged spin. No movement at all has been seen so far.
My opponent agrees that ISS tracking sites are nothing more than preset data, tracking nothing at all. What happens when the ISS has to change it's course due to the several thousands of satellites and space junk in orbit with it. A grain of sand, travelling at 17,000 miles per hour would be devastating to any of the delicate solar panels Etc. on the ISS.
The pictures my opponent provides does not appear to be a solid object, and while still slightly visible, the plane is reflecting little light, and the holographic image is overcoming that light. Compare these images:
ISS is too far to see.
My opponent offers a fairly weak rebuttal about distances, whereas his math is a bit off. If a plane flies about 7 miles away from the earth and the ISS is about 250 miles up, this is about 36 times the distance. So even taking into account my opponents baseless claim, it would be at least 20 times smaller, and invisible from the ground. As we see from Mr Nowicki's photos, an entire city looks like one from the micro-machine's collection, from only 60 miles away. The ISS is roughly the size of a 747, which is roughly the size of a football field.
My opponent (and modern science) claims that radiators keep the entire ISS from melting! This is ridiculous if we know exactly how a radiator functions. Radiators take the warmer air and transfer that to water or some other liquid. This liquid is then ran through metal fins or the like, which is then transferred to the surrounding air molecules as it passes through the fins. Since the surrounding atmosphere is very thin, and 2,000 degrees, this makes a radiator pretty much useless. Solar panels, which are made of mostly silicate would be melted, as would anything else that is on the exterior. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, when simply put, states that heat moves to cold, which is why radiators work in cars, the air flowing through the fins is colder that the fins. So basically, especially over 18 years, every hot molecule of air that came close to the ISS would be attracted to the supposedly cooler ISS, or any of the many thousands of satellites in orbit around the earth. Satellites were first dreamed up by high level Freemason science fiction writer Satanist pedophile Arthur c. Clarke, and later, the idea was implemented into the system.
"Cellular service only uses towers. Satellite phones use satellites."
Why? If sat phones are reliable everywhere, why not abandon towers altogether?
" They would not be able to function without satellites (like how they can function in the middle of the ocean.)"
How do you know how reliable satphones are in the middle of an ocean? Cruise ships offer cellphone service because they have cell towers built in. They could serve as relays for satphones. Granted they wouldn't be as reliable, but no sat phone can be called reliable at sea either. Furthermore, the radiowaves used by phones travel in straight lines (unable to travel around the curvature of a globe). Signals can also be bounced from the firmament that I discussed in our previous debate.
"any voter could easily see how the basic pillars upon which aerospace is taught assume a spherical earth. "
Where? How can we "easily" see this?
"The opponent basically says next that launched satellites actually go into the Bermuda Triangle. This is one of the few points I will not entertain without evidence or logic to support it. The claim is ludicrous and needs to be proved or it will continue to be considered ludicrous. "
The proof is in the arching trajectory picture I provided earlier. Of course it's ludicrous, even questioning the shape of the earth is ludicrous, yet here I am, proving it. It is not necessary for me to prove that rockets only go far enough away and fall into the ocean. This is meant to be an alternative to rockets "smacking into the side of a flat earth". Since I have proved the earth is flat once already, this proves itself.
I have offered evidence, yet it is largely ignored. Do you have valid evidence of it being 93,000,000 miles away?
"This is why winters have longer nights -- less sun is received. "
Does that mean the earth slows it's rotation in the winter?
"The next claim is that the sun shrinks when heading toward the horizon. The only evidence for this is a video. Please note that it is impossible to "eyeball" the actual size of the sun during the day, since it is so bright that lens flare (eye lens) can look like part of the sun."
Which is why I offered videos where the flare can be reduced, namely, a solar filter. None of these videos are "eyeballing" anything.
" As the sun sets, you see less of its light (since it is largely being absorbed by the atmosphere), reducing the lens flare and leading one to see the actual boundaries of the sun."
I also offer proof of the sun shrinking during the sunsets.
I've demonstrated the flaws in the opponent's case and corrected his misunderstanding regarding my own. I look forward to the next round. I hope my opponent is having as much fun as I.
I keep finding myself having to cut down a lot of my argument in order to fit it within the 10,000 character constraint. To help alleviate that, I'll be using many images in the following argument.
I think I'm going about this all wrong. This is a point in favor of proving the opponent's case, so I don't need to prove that this definitely is is superior mirage (or other equal phenomenon). Insteak, I need to ask the question "Could this be a superior mirage," and "is it likely?" If I can show that it is possible this image is a superior mirage and that it is somewhat likely, the Burden of Proof that the opponent has (regarding his own case) implies that the point cannot be favored toward him.
In other words, the opponent needs to prove that this is definitely a real image and not a mock image or mirage image. If I can show he has not proved this, then the point does not weigh in his favor and becomes moot.
So, could this be a superior mirage? Yes.
The term "superior mirage" covers a wide variety of atmospheric and refractive phenomena. The more accurate term to describe this particular skyline event is called a "mock-mirage". A "mock-mirage" is a type of superior mirage. 
Mock-mirages happen because of an event known as "thermal inversion", which is due to temperature differentials in the atmosphere. This is exactly what one would expect over a body of water, since the temperature above a body of water almost always differs with the temperature on land. (This is because water releases energy more slowly than air.) Notably, a mock-mirage can exist as long as the conditions for producing a mirage do. 
All together, this results in a slight refractive curvature which allows objects to be seen over equally as slight curvatures. (The slight curvature of the Earth over a distance of 60 miles).
To conclude, we know that the conditions are right for a mock-mirage to occur over the lake from which the image is taken. We know that mock-mirages do happen. We know that an image of some sort is seen. Therefore, it is completely plausible that this skyline is a mock-mirage. It is also plausible (in some ways) that this is an actual image, but given the current evidence -- it is impossible to tell which is true. As such, the opponent's argument cannot be weighed in his favor, since he has not proven that either a) this can't be a mock-mirage or b) that this definitely or most likely is an actual object being seen (as opposed to an image.)
Reflections of light on water.
The opponent evades my argument by pointing out I used the term "stretching" instead of "shrinking". Regardless of the correct term, my argument still holds, since I was pointing out that the "change" in the image of the sun would only change slightly since the viewed curvature of the earth is very slight. Whether the sun appears "stretched" by 0.3% or "shrunken" by 0.3% is not pertinent, since the point was the change is super small.
I've already presented the image describing how light still reflects on curved surfaces and how it still appears to "radiate" toward you. Unless the opponent is claiming that there is not a minute shrinkage in these images, he has failed to rebut my point. And if he is claiming that these reflections do not have any shrinkage, I would expect some sort of evidence to prove it.
The opponent noticed that I couldn't exactly "prove" what I was saying. This is fair. I do believe it was common sense, however, which should be waved.
However, let's just look at "one way" flight paths. By looking at these, we remove the "economic incentive" argument, since clearly getting from Point A to Point B would be the best possible thing for the carrier. [http://i.imgur.com...]
In the image provided, we see the flight paths do not follow any odd patterns. There is a noticeable curvature in the flight paths, but this is what would be expected on a curved earth. The shortest distance between two points on a three dimensional sphere would look curved when projected onto a two dimensional surface.
Understanding this, it is clear that flight paths do not follow some "secret most efficient flight path" that only applies to the Flat Earth. Rather, flights with multiple stops will take odd paths (likely for economic reasons) and flights that do not have stops will follow the single most efficient path they can, should they have the fuel.
As such, this point clearly does not prove a Flat Earth. (If anything, the curvature apparent in these flight paths indicates a spherical earth.)
Here, the opponent complains that my link was dead and argues that he "couldn't find" mentions of pendulous rods. (Anyone can click on said links and see they lack deadness.)
As for the pendulous rod -- apparently this really isn't that common. So I spent a few hours researching gyroscopes and finally found the exact reason Attitude Indicators stay "locked to gravity". And that is... drum roll.... precession. Everything I said before now was me not understanding what I was talking about, so ignore it.
I came upon precession from the beginning of my research, but I didn't fully appreciate what it was doing. Essentially, when any force acts upon a gyroscope, it does move in response to this force. This movement, however, occurs at a 90 degree angle to the applied force, in an action which is known as precession.
Gravity acts as a constant accerlative force upon a gyroscope, meaning the instrument will always attempt to precess 90 degrees to it. Example:
The drawing software I use somewhat mangled the top left of the image, so we'll ignore picture 1.
Looking at picture two, we see a gyroscope in a housing and a center of mass. The housing is the block in the middle and is free to rotate (but not translate) as it is in a larger set of gymbals. The center of mass is represented by the red dot. Note that the center of mass tries to go toward the direction of gravitational pull.
In image three, we have the gyro 'turned on'. The gyro will precess such that the force of gravity is causing the gyro to react, but in a 90 degree difference. As such, the gyro is perpendicular, rather than parallel, to the force of gravity.
Finally, note in image 4 how the same gyro would look as it moved across the surface of a curved earth. The directional force of gravity would change in relation to the moving gyro, and as such the gyro would precess in order to reflect this. All object are affected by changes in directional forces, since objects change motion when acted upon by a force. The gyro's reaction is just "weird" because of the precession that occurs.
[As a note: The red dot represents the gyro's center of mass. When the center of mass is not at the center of rotation on the gyro, you have an "earth gyro", since a force is attempting to move the center of mass about the center of rotation. If the center of mass and the center of rotation are the same, you'd get a space gyro, since no force would be attempting to move the gyro about the center of rotation.]
The opponent seems to want to discredit the existence of the ISS by posting a bunch of picture of the ISS. Just kidding.
As I said, the position is figured out via a mathematical formula and known past positions. When there is an ISS correction, NASA releases said information and the tracking sites input the new position and orbital configuration into the formula.
Opp moves away from U2 planes and attempts to say that the ISS is a hologram by referencing grainy photos of the ISS taken from Earth. Obviously long distance photos are grainy -- this is not indicative of a hologram. More on this in the next point when we discuss "light".
ISS too far to see.
The ISS is too far to clearly see with the naked eye. Instead, it looks like a light moving across the sky. Consider that one can clearly see the blinking lights on a boening 747 as it flies across the night sky. Even though the lights are some 1x1x1 ft, they are visible. This is because our eyes are good at seeing light.
This is the same reason we can see stars that are millions of miles away -- they emit large amounts of light. Similarly, the ISS reflects large amounts of light, due to it's reflective surfaces and fairly large surface area. If you can see a 1x1 ft light from 7 miles, it stands to reason that you can see a 356 x 240 ft light from ~250 miles.
The opponent is correct that a radiator does not optimally dissipate heat in a thin atmosphere. The same goes for an object absorbing heat, however. Satellite radiators work because they are able to poorly radiate the heat being poorly absorbed by the satellite.
The opponent is basically correct in his explanation of radiators. As it applies to satellites, heat absorbed by the exterior of the satellite is vented through the craft to the radiators, which more effectively absorb and vent heat than the rest of the craft. So the heat moves to the "cold radiators", which is dissipated out of the craft.
Again, the opponent himself pointed out the thinness of the atmosphere. 1200 degrees on the surface of the earth heats objects much more efficiently than 1200 degrees in the thermosphere.
Cell Towers/Satellite Phones
The following explains that satellite phones are used at sea.  This pretty much defeats the opponent's only counterargument. Satellite phones are designed such that they can only work if there exist satellites, since they don't utilize cell towers at all.
Satellite phones wouldn't work if satellites didn't exist. Satellite phones work. Therefore, satellites exist.
Aerospace Learning/Bermuda triangle/Time Zones
Will cover in next round
I'm out of space; apologies for not hitting last two arguments. I will likely post my final response in the form of a video, fyi to Opp.
1 - http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...
2 - http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...
3 - http://www.bwsailing.com...
Thanks goes to my opponent for his prompt response. I was anxious to see many images my opponent mentioned, but to my disappointment, I saw only a drawing. Nevertheless, let's get to his arguments.
"In other words, the opponent needs to prove that this is definitely a real image and not a mock image or mirage image. If I can show he has not proved this, then the point does not weigh in his favor and becomes moot. "
Fair enough, my opponent offered a valid source, I'll assume, and there's lot's of information in this, but no pictures. I was thinking actual pictures of mirages for visual aid, since it is a fully visual phenomenon. Anyway, while confirming my opponents mirage statement, he ignores part of this paragraph, and I know he's going to kick himself. Full quote from the article my opponent provided the link to in the last round.
"Don't confuse image inversion (i.e., something appearing upside down — the common property of all mirages) with the thermal inversion (an atmospheric structure) that produces mock mirages and superior mirages. "
All mirages are inverted. Whether it be image inversion, thermal inversion, mock mirage (although the name does sound convincing) superior, or inferior mirage, they are ALL inverted.
With this in mind, let's look at Mr. Nowicki's beautiful photos.
This is a mirage. You can tell because the buildings seem taller, but the midsections are missing from some notice how you can see the actual city below the mirage. Beautiful. Now look at this one.
http://investigate-nasa.com...; alt="" />
Does this look upside down at all? I would like to thank my opponent for that source at this time, and of course, Mr. Nowicki, look him up on facebook, he'll forever be the guy that first proved that the earth was flat to me. Send him money.
Reflections on water
"The opponent evades my argument by pointing out I used the term "stretching" instead of "shrinking". Regardless of the correct term, my argument still holds"
What argument? This one?
"Looking at the photo provided, we see the sun setting over the horizon, producing a linear, gradiated line of reflection which extends toward the camera. This is the expected behavior of light in both a flat and spherical earth model. The following image illustrates this:"
You provided no photos, you sketched a few drawings. I provided photos. What happens when the sun gets a bit lower? The next ray of light will not be visible, being reflected well over his head, but the sun is "well above the Earth"! It's got a long way to go to sunset, because the sun is actually about 4,000 feet below your feet just before sunset, according to the ball earth theory. Continue the ball where you cut it off, and drop the sun.
In respect for the globe's untimely demise, and my opponent's untimely drawings meant to defend his ball, I offer a photo that we can refer back to in case we forget that we can see 60 miles at least to the horizon, and this should be a 2,400 foot drop.
This topic is getting redundant, agree to disagree, and hope the voters have some common sense, and courage with them. Though I would like to point out to the voters, I did say there were other flight paths like this.
My opponent abandons his rod and tries to use precession as the excuse that gyroscopes don't roll back with his ball's rotation, or flights thereon. He is confused about what precession is, and his drawing is also confusing, I'm sure the voters will agree. Let's look at what precession is.
"the slow movement of the axis of a spinning body around another axis due to a torque (such as gravitational influence) acting to change the direction of the first axis. It is seen in the circle slowly traced out by the pole of a spinning gyroscope. "
This is precession
s://i.ytimg.com...; alt="" />
This is the roll, that is expected.
So you agree they are fake tracking sites. What else is fake? Let's examine one.
Immediate fakeness. Why can't we, as taxpayers, who are paying these clowns to play musical instruments in Vomit Comets, have a high def, moderately zoomed in so maybe I could start a fire and see it, quality live video, instead of Google Maps? This isn't "what the Astro-nots are seeing even if they were in space! Put one on the moon if there's no problem getting there, and it's always facing us. They have the equipment to do it with.
"Opp moves away from U2 planes and attempts to say that the ISS is a hologram by referencing grainy photos of the ISS taken from Earth. Obviously long distance photos are grainy -- this is not indicative of a hologram. More on this in the next point when we discuss "light". "
I did not, a holograph could be displayed under the U2 plane. Alternatively, it could be projected onto the firmament. When were you going to elaborate on holograms and light?
ISS too far to see.
The Nikon p900 is a great camera for the price, the manufacturer claims that objects can be seen from 10 miles distance! Notice that there is no explanation why one would be able to see this object from 250 miles. Once again, I give you a photo of an entire city shrunk to less than a fraction of it's original size at only 60 miles.
Radiators in space.
"The opponent is basically correct in his explanation of radiators. As it applies to satellites, heat absorbed by the exterior of the satellite is vented through the craft to the radiators, which more effectively absorb and vent heat than the rest of the craft. So the heat moves to the "cold radiators", which is dissipated out of the craft. "
How is this heat dissipated from the craft? It can't dissipate to the already 2,000 degree (how did they obtain this information? do thermometers look the same in space?) very sparse molecules in the near vacuum. I think my opponent would better understand this argument explained in detail, from an engineer and physics teacher, Mr. Brian Mullin. And yes, he knows the earth is flat.
An image from my opponents source (thanks again bud!) shows actual coverage areas, around land masses.
I would also like to remind everyone that Mr. Teslas work was confiscated by the U.S. government. This man promised to bring power to the world wirelessly. I would put nothing past these guys. If you can see a craft like the iss through a p900, we would be able to see some of these others, maybe some moon gazers caught some?
I await my opponents response.
I thank the opponent for being brief and even letting one argument go, as this allows me adequate space to respond. And yes, I did not produce the number of pictures I intended to. Maybe this time will there will be more.
The opponent puts all his eggs in one basket here, agreeing that he must prove the skyline to be probably a real physical object, rather than an image. He argues that under a "mock-mirage" the image will be inverted.
I'm guessing he misread the quote he himself referenced. "Don't confuse image inversion (i.e., something appearing upside down -- the common property of all mirages) with thermal inversion."
As the source I referenced explains, a "mock-mirage" is a product of thermal inversion, not image inversion. I suppose the opponent saw "mirage" in "mock-mirage" and assumed it would be classified as a mirage.
Note that "mock-mirage" means "fake-mirage", or more generally speaking, "not an actual mirage". The provided source explains why tall objects that should be obscured by the curvature of the Earth can be seen as a result of thermal inversion. The gradient caused by the introduction of a large body of water creates the perfect condition for a "mock-mirage" to occur.
As it stands, the opponent hasn't actually demonstrated that the image is a real object. He furthermore hasn't shown that it is unlikely a mock-mirage, since his response concerned "real mirages" as opposed to "mock-mirages". As such, this point flows to me.
Reflections over water
The opponent provided a photo of a sunset, a photo of a light on a slick surface and is trying to argue that said evidence sufficiently proves... well, anything.
My admittedly rudimentary drawing shows how light travels. In this drawing, the sun is overhead. Allow me to post another one explaining what happens at sunset.
I provided a zoomed in picture, since the pad I use doesn't save in HD. There are a few things to notice:
Blue Dot - This is the observer. The top of him are his eyes, the bottom of him is where he touches the earth.
Red Line - This is Blue's line of sight when looking directly at the horizon. Note that the sun is passing through this, giving Blue the apparent view of a sunset.
Purple Line - This is the line tangent to Blue's position. In other words, if the Earth became flat right where blue is standing, this purple line would represent the surface of the earth. Note that the sun is entirely below the purple line, indicating that it is below blue's feet from his frame of reference.
Zoomed in - The portion of the sun that is above the red line will hit the water and reflect into blue's eyes. This is represented by the gold lines. The part of the sun touching or below the red line will not reflect off the surface of the earth blue can see, since it is below the horizon line. Blue would here be seeing a portion of the sun.
Hopefully this simple image makes clear how light travels and reflects from the earth into the viewer's eyes, even when the sun is below the observer's feet from his frame of reference. Notably, the taller the observer, the greater difference in slope between the positional tangent (purple line) and the horizon line of sight (red line). A very short object would be unable to see much of the sun as it passed "under their feet". A very tall object would be able to see more of the sun.
This is why in Dubai, you can watch the sunset on the ground, right up to the top of the huge building, then watch the sunset again.
The opponent let this one go. Goody for me.
The precession "wobble" is definitely a thing, no doubt -- but the opponent seems to miss how it is relevant to airplane gyro's, which is our discussion point.
A precession "wobble" will occur when a force is applied unevenly to some portion of the outer rotating disc. The precession will continue until an equal force is (at the correct time) presented to the opposite side of the disc.
With gravity, the force is being constantly applied to all parts of the gyroscope. If we consider a non rotating disc locked into a gyro that has its center of mass down, angling the disc will cause it to try and "fall" back into its normal, level position.
When rotating, the gyro will not attempt to fall back into its level position, but instead begin to "precess" into a perpendicular position. Here's the important part: The precession wobble will quickly be reduced, since gravity will continuosly try and bring the "higher" portion of the disc toward the "level position".
In other words, gravity is constantly acting on a gyroscope, meaning that the precession wobble will constantly be moved toward a smaller wobble. The gravitational vector slowly changes as one moves across the earth, meaning the induced precesssion is always small and is quickly made nill by the continuous force of gravity.
So yes, a precession wobble does occur and it would keep occuring if gravity was a "one time force". However, it is constant, meaning the wobble quickly diminishes until it comes to rest in its lowest energy state.
The opponent's question was a good one -- and I'm glad he allowed me the opportunity to explain this to the voters. It's not initially clear why there is not a precession wobble constantly occuring on an earth gyro.
The opponent is confused regarding the word "fake". Yes, tracking sites do not always "really know" the position of the ISS, since they are not continuously fed data from NASA. Instead, they rely on a mathematical formula to derive the position of the ISS. Notably, if the voter wanted to test out whether this actually worked, they could get the next passover from a tracking site and see that yes, the ISS actually does pass over.
These sites work, so it's hardly apt to call them fake. As for the photos and videos of the ISS close up, these are literally everywhere. However, the opponent has claimed that the space agency commonly produces hoaxed images and videos -- meaning if I did present these, the opponent would just say they're fake.
You can't complain that there dont' exist photos and videos, then say that we're not allowed to consider photos and videos from a governmental space agency. Obviously the only people capable of getting a "close shot" of the ISS are space agency astronauts who are physically close to the ISS.
I suppose I have to admit -- it's "possible" that the ISS is a hologram being projected underneath a plane.... a plane with an infinite amount of fuel that moves at bewildering speeds.
The ISS is constantly seen by the public, meaning the plane would need to be in the air at all times. Another plane could not come in and take its place, since the hologram would "die" for a time and someone would notice it. I suppose the plane could be constantly refueled though, so let's consider speed.
The ISS is claimed to move at about 5 miles per second. A closer object wouldn't need to move that fast in order to match the apparent speed. It would be close though:
Circumference of 250 m orbit = PI*diameter = PI*(8000miles + 2*250 miles) = PI*8500 miles
Circumference of 7 mile "orbit" = PI*d = PI*(8000 + 14) = PI*8014 miles.
So a U2 plane projecting a hologram would need to move at (PI*8014) / (PI*8500) times the speed.
This is: (5 miles / sec) * [ (PI*8014) / (PI*8500) ] = (5 miles / sec) * (8014/8500) = (5 miles / sec) * .94 = 4.7 miles / sec.
Simply put, we don't have planes that fly anywhere near that fast. In fact, a plane could not fly that fast without being ripped to shreds by the frictional forces of the atmosphere. So holograms == not a possibility.
ISS too far to see
The opponent's argument seems to be "this particular camera can't see that far", which ignores my entire argument.
Again, the ISS is bright, allowing the light to be seen at long distances. Just as you can see a tiny light on a plane that's 7 miles up, you can see the giant light reflected from the ISS 250 miles up, just as you can see Polaris, which is over 400 light years away. Light continues to travel, despite the distance between the viewer and the light source. If there is enough light travelling, the human eyes will see it.
As I said, the atmosphere is very thin. The particles in this atmosphere are very hot, but also very sparse. The particles in a solid space craft are very compact.
This is why a solid radiator can "vent" heat into the thin, hot atmosphere. Heat transfer can be thought of as happening to balance the "heat / unit^3" of two objects. In other words, a radiator will continue venting heat until the amount of heat in a one cubic centimeter of radiator is equal to the amount of heat in one cubic centimeter of "outside air".
Let's be generous and say that the thin atmosphere has 1 hot particle / u^3 and a radiator has 10 hot particles / u^3. Let's say "hot" is 1000K. The atmosphere would have 1000K worth of heat / u^3 while a radiator has 10000K worth of heat / u^3. The radiator would continue venting in this case, since it contains much more heat than the atmosphere around it.
This is a common misinterpretation in science. The amount of heat a collection of particles has is different from the particle's temperature. A 1x1x1 solid with a particle temperature of 1K contains much more heat than a 1x1x1 thin gas with a particle temperature of 1000k. This is why radiators work in the thin thermosphere. In fact, this is why they work pariticularly well in the thermosphere.
The opponent presents a picture that seals the deal on my argument. Clearly sat phones work over large swaths of the ocean where no cell towers are present. Note that you get coverage over almost the entire span of the Atlantic ocean from NY to London.
I've demonstrated that sats exist. I've demonstrated that sats only work on a globe, indicating that the earth is round. I've also shown the opponent has not proven the earth is flat in any measure.
As such, I have won today's debate. Thank again to the opponent for the rematch.
It's now apparent that my opponent had no prior knowledge of mirages until this debate. I honestly cannot believe I am still refuting this topic. My opponent now implies that the image is not a mirage, which is the purpose of this argument, to decide whether or not it is a mirage. While quoting the sentence in question, he leaves off the part that has inconvenienced his argument.
"that produces mock mirages and superior mirages. "
How my opponent arrives at the conclusion that mock MIRAGES are not mirages is a mystery. Thermal inversion is what causes a mock mirage. Image inversion is a basic property of all mirages. Read the excerpt again. The idea that image inversion causing mirages is a new type of mirage that is actually NOT a mirage, but a fake one with absolutely no basic properties of any known mirage is comical. I'm starting to wonder if I am being trolled. Maybe he though he could just simply google and use whatever he found.
"As the source I referenced explains, a "mock-mirage" is a product of thermal inversion, not image inversion. I suppose the opponent saw "mirage" in "mock-mirage" and assumed it would be classified as a mirage. "
What is it then? It's not a mirage, we both agree, and I'm all for going against mainstream accounts, but if it's not a mirage, and it isn't real, then what is it? It's Chicago, plain and simple, and proof of a flat earth. Upon further investigation, mock MIRAGES have nothing to do with anything but the sunset. All images of "mock mirages" (or whatever my opponent is trying to deceive us into believe it is) are of sunsets, a simple image search will show this. And it is an inversion by the way, it's where the sun has started to mirror itself slightly above itself, sometimes causing green flashes or of another color. A mock mirage is not a fake or pretend mirage, mock is used to describe the type of mirage. OSA Publishing is the largest peer-reviewed collection of optics and photonics information in the world. This is what they have to say about mock mirages.
"A previously unrecognized phenomenon, which we call the mock mirage, produces inverted images of the Sun and Moon near the horizon when the observer looks downward through a thermal inversion. ."
Conclusion : The pictures of the Chicago skyline which have no inversion are not mirages. They are definitely not "mock mirages", or whatever my opponent is trying to convey.
Reflections on water.
My opponent has offered another sketch to try and prove the ball, which has really gotten amusing. Had my opponent offered anything other than sketches to prove his point, I might've taken this a little more seriously. I'll just leave this decision to the voters.
My opponent makes one more point in his argument which wasn't covered until now (This is why in Dubai, you can watch the sunset on the ground, right up to the top of the huge building, then watch the sunset again), and since this is the last round, I won't fully elaborate on this point, instead, I'll refer to Mr Mullin on his take on perspective and how this works, with simple, visual examples, not technical jargon that my opponent can somehow warp into his vision of reality. Unless you are an art student, perspective is largely understood.
Agreeing to disagree is not conceding. I still hold that flights should not go 5,000 miles in the wrong direction.
It is apparent that my opponent had little knowledge of gyroscopes prior to this debate, at first using pendulous rods as a reason that they do not rotate with the earth's spin or curvature, finally settling on precession as proof against me with a sketch explaining this. I pointed out that precession is not the same as a roll as what we should see on a ball. The entire argument rests on this precession and how it prevents the gyro from rolling back, my opponent cannot explain this read only by saying that a downward force causes a slight wobble in it's rotation.
In conclusion, while things that go up inevitably go back down, causing this "wobble", it doesn't disprove a flat earth. It also can't explain why gyroscopes remain in a level position throughout the rotation of the earth or going over the curve in a plane.
My opponent never addressed star trails.
If the earth were spinning, wobbling, spiraling around the sun, which is spiraling around the galaxy which is spiraling around the universe that is ever expanding at ludicrous speeds, star trails would not exist. The stars would not move in perfect circles around the north star.
I did not ask for pictures of the iss from space, I asked for a live feed of earth, zoomed in, from the ISS, or the moon. I will be waiting with a magnesium flare. They can't do that for this very reason. They can't even give us constant feed from the camera they do give us. And every bit of it is fake.
According to my source from last round, the tracking site, when one looks at the tracker on the bottom, underneath, "The blue sections of the ISS' track indicate when the space station is in the earth's shadow. The red sections mark when the ISS is sunlit." Notice how when the ISS is over a location, it is only reflecting sun during the daytime, which makes sense. So, seeing the ISS at night should be impossible. This should say something for these photos of the ISS, and bring this argument to an end. What the ISS actually is is not entirely known Project Blue beam comes to mind. And it could be bounced off of the firmament as I've said before. Polaris isn't 400 light years away either. Tesla stressed that the stars were in the firmament.
You can't have a "vent" in a vacuum. You are honestly saying that the ISS is venting all of it's hot air into a vacuum. What is replenishing this artificial atmosphere as it is quickly sucked out into the vacuum. The ISS hasn't had a breath of fresh air in 18 years. Look, the ISS is sealed away from a vacuum, this is why there is an air lock. In order to transfer hot molecules of air inside to anything it has to be cooler, according to the 2nd law of dynamics. Is the ISS somehow bringing a cold atmosphere with them to transfer the heat from all those electronics, infrared from the sun, etc to, since it can't be transferred to a near vacuum?
They should be reliable all over the globe, if it were one, with as many satellites as there are supposedly orbiting the earth, which no one can see crossing the moon.
While this debate was somewhat better than the last, in that my opponent actually attempted to refute my claims, my opponent ultimately ends up kritiking again, indirectly trying to prove big g, now disguised as satellites. Dropping all other arguments for a spherical earth beneath his feet for a light in the sky. I have provided empirical evidence that the earth has no curve at all, while my opponent offers a weak "satellites could exist, therefore, the earth is a ball argument. I hope my opponent's embarrassment does not overcome him when the voters make their decision. To our voters, you don't have to be a flat earther to say who won this debate, no one except flat earthers like this name. Do not let public opinion sway your judgement though.
I know I only lightly touched on the firmament in this debate, but if the voters would go back to see that nothing was refuted there by my opponent. So I have shown it to exist. A collection of mainstream videos of phenomenon that can only be explained by the critical thinkers to suggest an enclosed environment can be found here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to judge because of it's length and the well reasoned arguments by both sides. I will try to get back to this at some point and am placing this as a reminder to myself
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: It only takes one convincing proof that the earth is round to prove it is round. It is not required for Pro to disprove, or even address, all of Con's objections. Pro had three arguments that Con did not effectively answer: that satellites must exist as claimed for them to function, that knowledgeable people working in aerospace apply the round earth concept successfully, the observation of the ISS, and the existence of time ones with the distance to the sun proved by various methods. Pro didn't attack Con's sources vigorously enough. For example, how were the alleged distances to the Chicago skyline verified? Con was providing rote denial, but really had no credible sources to back his claims. Con's idea was to give the impression that if serious doubt could be cast on one or more of Pro's claims then he should win. That's not correct. It suffices to prove the earth is round without having to disprove every bogus claim to the contrary. More in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.