The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Pro (for)
The Contender
JMCika
Con (against)

The earth: flat (pro) vs spherical (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
JMCika has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,431 times Debate No: 100336
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (52)
Votes (0)

 

Edlvsjd

Pro

Pro will argue for a flat earth, con will argue the spherical side. To avoid semantics involved with the topic, and go over some differences in types of evidence we'll likely discuss, I'll offer some definitions.

earth:
noun
1.the plane(t) on which we live; the world

Flat:
For this word we use the general, overall version, specifically for this debate, not a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. We all know there are mountains and hills that are far from flat.

Spheroid:
Ball or spherically shaped, specifically for this debate, a ball this is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Empirical Data:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

Formal sciences are disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics. These require no empirical data, and come secondary to such.

I would also like to point out the differences in subjective evidence and objective data:
http://www.asdatoz.com......

RULES

1. Burden of proof is shared, my opponent must provide conclusive, empirical, and subjective evidence for the two differences in our model, curvature, and axial rotation, and I must do the same for the opposing side of the dichotomy.
2. No semantics.
3. No ad hominem, my opponent seems to love insults, seeing as how I have a high tolerance for insults, Ad hominem is against the rules, meaning you can not use insult in or before an argument, or to replace an argument, once a rebuttal has been successful, some mud slinging should be in order and is allowed, if he chooses this, he should expect the same in return, all in good taste of course.
4. No forfeits otherwise, this will result in automatic loss and concession.

round structure:
round one should be either an acceptance only round, or con may state his opening arguments in this round, if he chooses the latter, he should forfeit the last round. round two should be used for opening arguments or, if my opponent opens first, my opening arguments, and his rebuttals to those arguments, and, if he chooses, more arguments, but no new arguments in round 3 if he opens first. the final round will be final rebuts and conclusions, unless he opens first, which he will forfeit by typing forfeit in that round.
JMCika

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Pro



Preface: Examining evidence

In this dichotomy, the preponderance of evidence for a flat earth far outweighs what little evidence that the ball earth theory touts, most of those are anecdotal, theoretical, inconclusive, or largely unrelated. When examining evidence, determining which stance is the true one requires that evidence to pass these tests, or it is a speculative assumption. We ultimately would take the choice with the least assumptions. I will show how all of my opponent's arguments are at least one or more of these, while providing empirical, experimental, and or logical evidences that point to a flat, motionless earth.

Point 1. Distances sighted.

The curvature allowed for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is easily calculable, but the lesson was curiously never taught in school, despite being indoctrinated about the globe since kindergarten. For the first mile, there should be a declination of 8 inches. Wikipedia will tell you this much, but since we don't live on a slope, the next mile will drop further than just 8 more inches. After the first mile, you must square the mile to get the accurate drop for the proposed ball. This formula is a simplified version, and has been verified in CAD programs. Example 10 miles (10x10=100x8=800/12=66.6 feet of curvature (I know right) Now that we know how much curvature that must occur in order for the earth to be a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, we can falsify this supposed curvature.
Since telescope, binoculars, and telephoto lenses are readily available, it's no wonder they won't teach us how to falsify this basic tenant of the round earth theory. Anyone who lives close to a body of water can perform the simple task of verifying whether or not that body was relatively flat. Case in point. Joshua Nowicki has been photographing Chicago from across Lake Michigan for some time now, this is a span of over 60 miles. When we plug this mileage into our curvature formula, we get (60x60)8"=28,800"/12=2,400 feet. Meaning the earth should go down hill so to speak 2,400 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is 1,400 feet, so we should not be seeing any of Chicago, yet there it is, in it's entirety.(1) This photograph is not rare, and the sight is a regular for the locals.

People are doing this simple experiment all over the world and the results are the same, no curvature, anywhere. This matches up with common sense daily observations of the physics of water, which is to find and maintain a flat, level surface. By the way, (2) this is a superior mirage, and inferior mirage, and they are always (3) inverted mirror like reflections of an object. Common sense will tell anyone that this couldn't possibly be a mirage. (4) Also, any time this simple test has been performed, no curvature has ever been found.(5) These are empirical, direct observations that refutes a basic tenant of my opponent's argument, if you examine that evidence objectively, the ball part.

(1) http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...
(2) http://image.slidesharecdn.com...
(3) http://aty.sdsu.edu...
(4) https://pbs.twimg.com...
(5) curvature tests: http://www.youtube.com...

Point 2 Experimental evidence you live on a flat plane

Take a piece of sheet metal and hold one side up to your eyes and the other end flat out at a light source some distance away. You will be able to get an image very much like this, if you hold the metal flat enough(6), however, bend it over, and you won't even see a reflection, because it is hidden behind curvature. Reflections of lights on balls produces a specular highlight, that always faces the source. Anyone with a christmas tree can confirm this. (7) The sun would be hitting 90d in relation to the observer and the center of the earth at sunset, about 4,000 miles below your feet in the flat earth model, the sun is out of reach for me to find out exactly what, where, and how the sun is, but it has never appeared to be below my feet, or 93 Brazilian miles away (7). It is a moving light in the sky, anything else i would have to speculate, and we are debating the earth, not (the) heaven(s), which is another debate altogether.

(6) https://youtu.be...
(7) https://pixabay.com...
(8) http://christianitybeliefs.org...

Point 3. Not one real picture of earth from space.

Probably the most regurgitated "proof" for a spinning ball is "photographic evidence". But how do you know it's not Photoshop? Every picture put forth by NASA has either been admitted Photoshop, where graphics artists stitch together scans of earth(9), which could easily be done on a flat earth with a u2 spy plane, or be proved fake. I challenge my opponent to produce any picture of a ball earth for examination, all of them have discrepancies. NASA uses fisheye lenses to curve the horizon in their videos and pictures, where you see a fixed, eye level horizon. Proof of this is in Felix Baumgartner's Red Bull sponsored record breaking sky dive. If you watch carefully, many times the horizon is way overly curved, like the land is covering 1/4 of the entire ball, or even concave. The true horizon is only visible when Felix Baumgartner is preparing for the jump.(10) Honestly, we could have allocated a cool million on a NASA -grade camera, trained it on the earth and mounted it on the moon available at no cost to the taxpayers, who have thus far invested about 1trillion dollars, adjusting for inflation, for such things as this, but hey, we got Tang and Velcro. Here we have a logical proof the the earth is not a ball, as this should have been done long ago. By the way, Felix landed in the opposite direction he would have if the earth were spinning around under him at 1,000 mph. Which brings us to another basic tenant of the most widely believed religion in the world, movement.
(9) https://youtu.be...
(10) https://youtu.be...

Point 4.Gyroscopes

A preponderance of evidence shows anyone with half a brain and use of their basic senses that when you are still, you aren't moving an inch. People were equipped with motion sensors in their ears. Go on any ride, slow or fast, you will always be able to sense movement (still forgetting about changing directions at breakneck speeds) especially when they are moving with the direction of travel verses away from it. If evolution and a spinning earth were true, there would be no such thing as motion sickness. Think about it.
This motion has never been proved in any experiment trying to do so. Aireys failure found none, Michelson Morley found none, and The Sagnac experiments confirmed this. Science claims that these experiments were searching for the existence of the aether, it was in fact done to determine the movements of the earth in respect to the Aether, both popular ideas at the time. Though the more radical ideas took precedence in that day, unless you could dazzle your audience, scientists made very little money, and the aether was ruled out instead of the ridiculous idea that we were spinning. This is why Einstein said " Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun."(11) The Sagnac Interferometer came along and confirmed the existence of the aether(12), which they back engineered to also fit along with TOR. Any person can get a decent gyroscope and test for any sort of movement themselves. A digital pitch indicator laid at rest also confirms this. A decent phone has a gyroscope in it, and a pitch indicator app will also show no change in direction in relation to space. So we have another empirical observation of a few experiments we can perform to conclude the earth isn't spinning.

(11) http://photontheory.com...
(12) The Michelson-Morley Experiment: http://www.youtube.com...;

Point 5. Space is illogical

Earth is supposedly a pressurized ball adjacent to a vacuum, with no barrier. This has never been observed. For instance, a vacuum light bulb has a glass barrier, seperating it from the exterior, a non vacuum. Compressed air comes in a can, Etc. If my opponent can provide a practical, scalable example of a pressurized medium existing adjacent to a vacuum, or, in any case, two opposing pressure systems ie. a vacuum and a high pressure system, it will be the first time.

Conclusions
So there is no evidence of any curvature, and there is no evidence of any spinning, two basic tenants of the heliocentric model that started out as assumptions and remain so to this day. Assumptions are ok to test out a theory, but this model has piled assumptions on top of assumptions on top of these two assumptions, sooner or later you must prove those initial assumptions. Hopefully, my opponent can end this debate, and give that conclusive proof I'm looking for.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
Youngastronomer
Earth isn't flat, we've seen pictures of it.

And yes, the ISS DOES exist and is in space right now, get a telescope and see for yourself
https://gyazo.com...

What's that supposed to be? An alien? A UFO? Don't make me laugh, we've been to space and see the Earth is a spherical planet
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Why would you think this is centered around you? Is it my fault you keep appearing in my dashboard?
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
I mean, I know you have a personal life and all, but really, you've been doing this for at least three days now. I have your full attention whether you want to admit it or not. It's ok, there are always excuses.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
maths isn't*

Unfortunate typo there.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
While I can see the appeal of the Zetetic method, drawing conclusion from observations first hand doesn't always lead to the right conclusion, and I think it is most clear when flatties say 'The earth is flat because it looks flat!' and links an image like this:

http://img12.deviantart.net...

or some sh*tty memes like:

https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com...

https://i.ytimg.com...

So, as you see, direct observations aren't always the best method of drawing conclusions. Most of the time, maths is required to objectively verify whether what you are spewing is true, and no, as much as you'd want it to be, maths is and will never be biased towards a ball earth, that goes against the very nature of maths itself.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Ah going the Zetetic method I see, so, you say physics assume a 'ball' and yet you agree that refraction occurs in the photos. Velocity assumes a ball? Crystallography assumes a ball? Springs assume a ball? Tension assumes a ball? Atoms assume a ball? Forces assume a ball?

Seems to me like this is one of those phrases thrown around by conspiracy theorists to get out of a corner, and if I am wrong, please convince me otherwise.

>Are you not aware that the greatest mathematicians can produce a dual system? If the facts don't match the theory, change the facts

Now you are simply lying my friend, you may find that the theory changes, not the facts.

>YouTube is an unbiased medium to express this and your findings

It is also a place where anyone can make videos about anything without being checked whether they are right. Rob skiba cannot lens, Antonio Subirats cannot use compasses or tell north from south, Jeranism cannot read properly, and most of the flat earth proponents are never aware of refraction, reflection or general knowledge of any physics before they ramble on about how seeing the Skyline is proof of flat even though they never question why the whole of Chicago cannot be seen.

You seem to be giving them too much credit, either that or you are showing them bias simply because they fit your narrative, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
You are choosing formal science is over Natural Sciences of explain the difference in my debate. Theories in mathematics do not require empirical evidence. Physics and other formal Sciences make the assumption that the Earth is a ball and that "fact" is infallible, concocting conjecture to explain the very many holes in the theory. Are you not aware that the greatest mathematicians can produce a dual system? If the facts don't match the theory, change the facts... poof. . Calculus is invented. Direct observations trump mathematics.

"but is still too stupid to be revealed by a bunch of scientific illiterates on youtube earning minimum wage."

The rest I agree with, with evidence to back up every statement. This, however, is the most asinine statement. If you found God, I mean real, practical evidence of God, do you think that a world of deceipt is going to take you seriously? YouTube is an unbiased medium to express this and your findings. It's not just a "we have access to particular instruments that you don't and here's what they say" it's a "guys you gotta check this out, try it for yourself!" medium. This is admitted bias. You'll hear your preacher's gospel, but any criticism towards it is invalid. This is not the scientific method, this is dogma, this is your religion.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
Why don't you give us a calculation that proves the flat earth, instead of youtube videos.

The Flat Earth conspiracy, a conspiracy so tightly held and controlled by the government that it has managed to brainwash the most intelligent people in the world and billions along with them, has managed to hide the ice walls and the supposedly obvious things you can see with your bare eyes, but is still too stupid to be revealed by a bunch of scientific illiterates on youtube earning minimum wage.

One of these things is not like the other...
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Experimentation proves that the earth is flat.
http://www.youtube.com...
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Call it what you will. Mathematics proves that numbers always add up.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.