The earth is a ball.
I will provide reason and evidence to demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere.
People have circumnavigated the planet both by boat and plane, meaning they have traveled all the way around it and started and ended in the same location. If the Earth was flat, this would not be possible.
2. The Moon
During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow blocks the Sun's light from reaching the moon, causing the moon to "disappear." During a partial eclipse, we can see the curvature of the Earth on the Moon itself. If Earth was flat, the Earth's shadow would look flat on the Moon.
3. Other planets
All other planets are round/spherical, there is no reason to suspect ours is any different. Also, other planets rotate too, which would be impossible if they were flat.
If the Earth was flat, the Sun's light would reach the entire planet simultaneously and we would all operate under the same clock. This isn't the case because we do have timezones.
5. The horizon
With strong binoculars, you can go to the ocean and watch as ships slowly "sink" beneath the horizon as they move further away.
If the Earth was flat, constellations would appear in the same orientation at all places on Earth. But they do not. Their orientation shifts when you view them from different locations.
My opponent wrote in the comments that he/she was expecting some of the arguments I shared. In return, I am expecting thought out responses to each.
Let's have some fun!
Thanks pro for accepting this debate. I hope we leave this argument with a bit more knowledge. I will give rebuttals and follow with a few proofs of my own.
The flat earth model is disc shaped with north being dead center of the disc, and the universe for that matter, going from this point in any direction will take you south, taking a left or right will take you east or west respectively. Taking the path of the sun moon and stars as shown here.
This is tricky one because we haven't really fully figured out exactly what it is, we may never know. We do know it's not what we're told by modern astronomers though, I will discuss a few reason for this.
1) blood moons
Never in scientific history has a solid object created a red shadow.
Several accounts say that both the sun and moon were visible above the horizon. This would be impossible if the earth were directly between the two.
More and more people are filming an anomaly happening on moon that can only be described as a refresh rate line. Similar to what you see through a security camera footage of another output device, or screen. The line actually changed the position of the moon. It's hard to catch but around 7 people have filmed it over 12 times. I'm not sure what it is myself but it looks cool as folk!
4) stars, atmosphere, night and planets in the moon(3)
Pictures and videos are popping up more often of a translucent moon, questioning the solidity of the moon.
5) lunar landings hoax. (4)
Even the most skeptical can watch one documentary about the lunar landings and with a little research, come to the conclusion that we didn't go to the moon. If you still think we went to the moon, this should wake you up.
There are more, harder to explain proofs, but we will start with these 5 things that tell us that the moon is not what we are told, and that the earth does not block the light on the moon.
There is plenty of reason to say that objects in the sky have nothing to do with the ground that we stand on. These objects are all glowing, we assume that the sun and stars are balls of fire, does that mean we are to assume we are too? With this reasoning, can we also assume that since cats are animals, and dogs are animals that cats are dogs? Planets differ from stars in their relative motion only. They are as luminous if not more so than some stars. Telescopes show sphere-like objects because they use curved mirrors and lenses which cause the center of any object being viewed to bulge out at the center. Just because these objects in the sky seem to rotate, does not mean we do.
Timezones exist because of the Sun is not 93 Brazilian miles away. Its light cannot stretch all the way across the disk that is earth. It disappears like the ships do. A few simple observations can prove this. How does the sun's heat get to the earth through all that vacuum? It gives us 100 plus degrees Fahrenheit temperatures at the equator, but go only a few thousand more miles away to Antarctica and we never get above freezing. At that rate the next planet closer to the Sun would be far worse than molten lava. The next planet probably wouldn't even be able to exist except as a cloud of smoke. The moon, should be on fire as it goes nearer the sun, and freeze over on the other side.
Another proof is the sun's rays, we know that the Sun casts rays at different angles. Anybody that walks outside on a cloudy day can see this, despite what science tells us which is that they all run perpendicular.
Ships never go over any curve (which goes against common sense seeing that the natural physics of water is to find and maintain a level surface), they only disapear because they, and everything else follow a few rules of perspective, atmospheric perspective and the law of perspective(5). As we can barely make out the last mountain in the photo below, it isn't because it is over any curve. Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust, anything that hovers close to the flat earth that will eventually, at a distance, block light from coming through all together. As it is thicker at lower altitudes, an object going away from you will appear to disappear from the bottom up, until it hits the vanishing point. A telescope (6)will bring it back into view, provided it can see through the dense atmosphere, which gets thicker with distance. Any videos, I've seen and proven this, that show boats going over the horizon only lower the camera to below where the waves break. A source of this claim that I couldn't prove did so might sway my opinion. I've yet to see a legitimate video of this happening though.
‘But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars!
This is an exhert from 1984 by George Orwell. In the flat earth model, (i might add the Bible, and the great Nicholas tesla (7) back this up as well) the stars are much closer to the earth, and rotate around it. If this is actually the case, they would follow the two aspects of perspective. It is and they do. They are in the firmament. It exists, and rainbows are proof of it.
Having fun yet? Buckle up!
Stars and constellations (8)
The fact that we see the same stars for all of recorded history is proof that they are not part of an expanding universe. If it takes 12 months to orbit the Sun and after six month's time we are on the other side of it whatever stars where on the other side of the Sun we cannot see because the Sun blocks the light from the stars, and it has come around to that side, we would only be able to see the stars that were on the opposite side of the globe from the Sun. Polaris is visible in the north at all times of the year despite it being directly above the axis of the earth that is tilted away from the Sun. This is impossible in an ever expanding universe.
The same above goes with the way the moon is lit up, if it is 38th is on the opposite side of the universe, the phases would not remain constant, they do, and even though it's supposedly a sphere, the northern hemisphere does not see a single degree more or less of it than the south does. If I held a beach ball, and two people looked at it from different angles, one would see a part of it that the other wouldn't and vice versa. The reported distance would make it less noticeable but not completely unnoticeable.
Thank you Con!
I look forward to my opponent’s response!
We know that the earth is the center of the universe because of all the evidence, no stellar parallax, north star never moves, sun goes around us. This all proves the bible, and we are Not random coincidences floating around in a speck in the vast universe. Bop is still on you though. Up until last 100 years, we haven't been able to even reach the Antarctic circle, when we did, temps and storms prevented us from going too far, also, who said anything about an edge? If an infinite universe is conceivable, why not an infinite plain? You pretend to not have heard of the Antarctic treaty.
Remember bop is on pro, as I do not have to necessarily explain what an eclipse is, I simply have to disprove what he says it is, which I have. You never see red light or green (so blue and green makes red?) coming from earth outside the atmosphere, much less a red shadow. https://youtu.be...
In the video the shadow of the earth is obscuring the moon from the top down rather than the bottom up, contrary to what would be expected when the earth is passing between the moon and sun. The sun's light should be peeking over the earth's horizon and hitting the moon from the top down.
Are we to believe that "refraction" has not only placed the moon that far above the earth's surface, but has moved the shadow the wrong way to boot?
Although I'm sure this will change, not many people just set up expensive cameras and film the moon all the time. The fact that this many people film it on separate occasions, with widely different set ups, prove that it is not an error with the camera. Furthermore, since bop is on pro, he can't explain it other than through atmosphere, but since we have atmosphere above us at all times, we'd notice this anomaly at any time without cameras. Atmosphere has not caused this effect anywhere else in nature, and it clearly moves the position in the moon.
Lunar landings hoax
I did in fact, give a source to a great video explaining the lunar landings was a hoax, and your source which supposedly claims they have no credibility is a dead link. As always I urge voters to do their own research, and make up their own minds.
There is in fact a video that was done on a balloon, which was launched and at its peak shows a sunspot on the clouds directly underneath the clouds, which would not happen if it were that far away at that angle, and the sun itself appearing much larger than normal, and at a 90° angle. And not the size difference cannot be blamed on glare because more atmosphere is more glare as shown in this picture. Since there is little to no atmosphere at this height, the sun is in fact closer.
Con ignores the subject of atmospheric perspective, and the fact that it is thicker at lower altitudes, which explains, without saying he is looking at them over a curve and at an angle, why he can see farther from a tree.
Con asks why hasn't anyone tried to blot out the stars, seriously? Airy's failure prove the stars go around the earth and the earth has not moved. https://youtu.be...
Con concedes to my last proof that the moon can't be a sphere if two people looking at it do not see any more of it If they are on opposite hemispheres.
Since con has only tried his best to disprove my arguments, bop was on him. I have successfully rebutted his rebuttals though and that burden has not been met.
Thank you Con! In this round I will make final rebuttals and write my conclusion.
“We know that the Earth is the center of the universe because of all the evidence, no stellar parallax, North Star never moves, sun goes around us.” What evidence? Please be more specific next time. We do observe stellar parallax; take a look at the following photo. These are two long exposure photographs taken at the same time of the same thing in two different locations, Boston and San Francisco. They each show the movement of an asteroid (the white streak). We can see that the asteroid passes over slightly different spots of the background stars depending on where you see it from . Also, the North Star doesn’t change positions in the night sky from our perspective because it is directly overhead of the North Pole.
“..We are not random coincidences floating around in a speck in the vast universe. Bop is still on you though.” I chose to defend that the Earth is a sphere, yet my opponent expects to make statements such as these without any support? The burden of proof lies upon anybody who makes a claim. I believe I have met my burden of proof throughout this debate, while I cannot say the same for my opponent and his claims.
After I brought up the hypothetical "edge of the world," Con writes "who said anything about an edge?" Every picture demonstrating what the flat Earth would look like has an edge, like the very first photo my opponent shared. It doesn't make sense that people wouldn't try to go to the edge. It seems like something important that more people would be trying to find if the Earth was actually flat.
And yes I have heard of the Antarctic Treaty. Take a look at what it says: "Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue" . It seems to me that something of this debate's nature would count as a scientific investigation. So why are't flat Earthers going on science expeditions to photograph the edge of the Earth?
Speaking on lunar waves: I don’t know why the moon is so relevant to this debate. Nevertheless I will respond to Con’s claim. “Furthermore, since bop is on pro, he can't explain it other than through atmosphere, but since we have atmosphere above us at all times, we'd notice this anomaly at any time without cameras.” The videos my opponent refers to require the camera to be zoomed in 50x to 100x, much closer than our eyes can see. Any camera forced to extend its lens this far is likely to show some distortion. To believe the Moon is a projection is silly. A comment on one of these “fake moon” videos sums it up nicely. “Have you ever thought how they would project a hologram every day for the past thousands of years and follow the same schedule for thousands [of years?] It's irrational to even think the moon is a hologram” . The Moon has been observed for thousands of years with the same 30 day cycle. To believe it is a projection is nonsensical.
Regarding the lunar landings hoax, I apologize for the dead link I shared. This link should work: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
It mentions arguments such as how the flag appears to be blowing in the wind, which should be impossible in space. It simply appears like this because of the inertia of having just shoved the flag into the Moon’s crust. Another argument is that the photos are faked because there are no stars in the background, just darkness. “The moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light” . The list goes on, and so do the rational explanations.
With respect to the assertion that the Sun is much closer to Earth, my opponent’s evidence is severely lacking. It is curious how the video he posted cuts from real shots of the sun directly to extreme close ups.
“Con ignores the subject of atmospheric perspective, and the fact that it is thicker at lower altitudes, which explains, without saying he is looking at them over a curve and at an angle, why he can see farther from a tree.” This is nonsensical. It doesn’t explain why there is such a clear, distinct cutoff between the visible part of the ship and the "invisible"/lower part of the ship. The atmosphere would have to go from incredibly thin above around 100 feet (the part we can see), and then incredibly thick under 100 feet (the part we cannot see). The atmosphere should gradually thicken, not suddenly become thicker.
Con has ultimately been cherry picking. My opponent refuses to accept that the Earth is round, that we revolve around the Sun and that we have been on the Moon, despite the absurd amount of video and photographic evidence that point to the contrary . Con likely believes that NASA photoshops their photos and videos, yet when he shares photos and videos that he thinks support his case, he expects us to accept that they are real and accurate without stating why.
To conclude, it is beyond irrational to imagine that all the governments and space agencies would go to such great lengths to hide Earth’s true shape. There is no possible way they could keep such a huge secret from each of the billions of people that live on Earth. Imagine all the staff they would need to edit their photos and videos to make the Earth appear round. You’d think at least one of them would pull a Snowden and release a “real” image of the flat Earth from their many satellites. Besides, what do they have to gain from spending so much time and energy trying to hide the truth from people?
It is a fact that the Earth is a sphere.
I thank my opponent for debating me!
|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||3|