The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.
Debate Rounds (3)
Thanks you for this second debate.
I will address the arguments posted forward in his prior debate.
Premise I: Proof v Claim
A claim made with no evidence or proof is void. It must be ignored as it is not an argument. If Con says a photo is photoshopped, but doesn't prove this or even show a link proving it, we must assume it is not photoshopped. Denial is not an argument. ALL BOP is on Con.
Rebuttal I: Bradford Experiment.
Con's first argument is centered around the Bradford Experiment, where a man uses a high powered telescope to prove that the Earth is flat. That error in this debunked experiment was that it had failed to account for optic refraction and a number of other factors. When these atmospheric effects are accounted for, Alfred Wallace discovered that the Earth was curved (1). The Bradford Experiment as long since been disproven.
Rebuttal II: Acceleration.
Con fails, in his second paragraph, to account for gravity. The gravity of the Core is strong enough to keep the water 'flat.' The rotation of the Earth also powers this gravity, forcing the water downward, creating a 'flat' like surface. This is basic physics, and is why you can take a bucket full of water, spin it in a circle quickly, and the water flattens instead of flying out of the bucket.
As for the balloon experiment... laughable. The Earth is 20,000+ miles long. Getting a balloon a mile or so up won't give you a very good view of the curve. Let's use a better video... A balloon launched into the Stratosphere (2). You can see the slight curvature of the Earth from it's height.
Rebuttal III: Antarctica
Antarctica is off limits to oil companies for a number of reasons... The few species that live there depend on the environment because it is the only environment they can live in. It wouldn't be the first time this month alone that environmentalists have won such victories in the name of the environment. The cost to the environment in Antarctica is far from being matched by what little Oil is in the region. Antarctica has few oil reserves... very few (3).
Rebuttal IV: Motion of the Earth
Con's claim presumes that the 'plane' in question starts at 0 miles an hour, and then moves at 500 miles an hour when it starts moving. In truth, as the Earth moves 1,000 miles an hour, so is the plane. When it moves against the Earth's rotation, it is pushing against it's initial motion, causing it to move only 500 miles an hour. And when it moves with the Earth, it is now moving 1,500 miles an hour. Basic programming will teach us when this. The movement is relative to the Earth's.
This is akin to a moving platform. When you are on it, it does not move without you. If it moves at 2 mph, so do you. When you walk at 1 mph, you are actually moving 1 mph + the 2 mph you were already moving. Ignoring these basic physics is the only way for Con's argument to succeed.
Rebuttal V: The Sun.
a) Clouds behind the Sun.
This is basic light-work. An illusion. Clouds are made of gas, and light can pass through it. Gas can only block out so much light, after all. When the light behind it is too strong, it looks as through the cloud is behind the light. There is also the bloom effect that allows the light to appear to pass around the cloud. (4)
b) Size of the Sun.
This is silly. They appear to be the same size because the sun is FAR bigger but FAR further away. Art has used this tactic for thousands of years to create beautiful effects.
Argument I: Size of the Conspiracy.
The most basic principle when it comes to conspiracy is that it MUST be small enough to survive. Having a thousand members in a conspiracy will make it too large to survive. And yet Con's conspiracy would require tens of thousands of members involved (maybe hundreds of thousands), and hundreds of years of existence. Con must prove that such a conspiracy CAN exist before proving it DOES exist.
Argument II: Errors in the Flat Earth Theory.
NASA's images are not the only ones to find the shape of the Earth spherical. Independent images by dozens of groups have found the same results. Unless Con can PROVE (as opposed to just claiming) each group is involved in his conspiracy. Such groups include National Geographic, Google, and a group of soldiers from New Mexico in 1946 running an independent test (7). There is the Blue Marble... The famous photo from NASA. Con claimed that it was faked, but that is a claim. Not an argument. Con fails to realize he must prove it is faked. He can't just say it is.
Conclusion: All of Con's claims are backed only by a lack of simple physics. Con has yet to prove any claim he has made.
1. The blue marble
I'm this first photo, north America has over doubled in size in just 30 years, The 1978 photo leaves no room for all of south America, the 2012 photo shows no room for Canada and Alaska where's the north pole? Where are the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth?https://i.ytimg.com...
The word "sex" wrote in cloud formations?
Matt Borland ex nasa employee was hired to produce such images and more.
Here is a collection of them side by side to compare, none of them are really similar, and the land masses have either changed size or location over time.
Your own video, if you examine closely, uses a fisheye lens! Pause the video at 1:38. Look! That's because the camera pointed well below the horizon, when its pointed directly at the horizon, the plane levels out, and when above this point, well you get the point.I hope.
As for debunking the Bradford experiment, I'm not an expert on light curvature, but I think that light bends upwards.
Lol @ the bucket experiment, when you spin said bucket, is the bucket's bottom towards the center of the spin? That's the only comparison you can make with earth... If the bottom of the bucket were on the outside of the spin, centrifugal force pushes the water outwards til it reaches a barrier in this case the bottom of the bucket, or gravity for that matter. Basic physics, like you said!
My video of a balloon launch is not nearly as laughable as your fisheye launch as I mentioned earlier, but to pacify, I searched YouTube for a few more high altitude launches,with no fishy cams, enjoy!
As for oil in Antarctica, they can never know for sure because the treaty prevents any mining but you offer a source saying no oil, I offer one that says plenty.
As far as planes and the earth's motion, when a plane leaves the surface of the earth, it's flight is not affected by the spin, it should be free of said spin, as in if you were in the back of a truck and jumped up high, you would come out, in your reference of a train, you never actually leave the surface of the moving object so you can't account for it.
As for the sun, it's funny you should mention art, because my current profile pic is an example of using the suns rays to finding its position relative to the clouds, and the earth, if the sun were 93Brazilian miles away, those rays would all be running in the same direction. That's art study 101. First lessons free.
As for the conspiracy part, I relate to you on this, and really, all that is needed is for nasa associates(Google operation paperclip) and world governments to keep it a secret, if you teach a globe from day one, no one bothers questioning it, simple as the abcs. Look at how much money is poured into nasa every year, for 60 years, that's enough money to bribe anyone to say anything.
"We don't have time for a meeting with the flat earth society" -Obama
Rebuttal I: Bedford Experiment.
Con doesn't explain how his light curvature case affects the experiment... Nor does his source. The source doesn't seem to make any mention of the Bedford Experiment. Con can not post a source, and let it do the talking for him, especially when it doesn't even seem to refer to his case. Funny enough, Con and his source are wrong. Light doesn't curve up, it curves DOWN(1). This makes the Earth appear flat by allowing the telescope's view to curve with the Earth. It's used in navigation to give the ship a further view of the Earth.
Rebuttal II: Acceleration / Balloon Experiment.
Con makes a fast assertion without proving that my video uses fish-eye lenses. Where is the source of his claim? The video is with a Go-Pro, which doesn't have fish-eye lenses. Had Con researched it, he would have known that. Con also doesn't post these new videos of his.
As for water, Gravity holds the water flat against the Earth. Water won't fall off the Earth because the strength of Gravity keeps it in place.
Rebuttal III: Anteratica.
Con's evidence is an opinion piece... One that is wrong. It claims 200 billion barrels of Oil, but in reality, there is only an assumed 50 billion at most (3). This is well under most oil producing nations, and far under the 1,200 billion in OPEC (4). This alone dismisses the whole point of Con's source, which was built on this one lie. Con lies, as well. He claims I said there was no oil. This isn't true. I said there wasn't a lot. Especially since the 50 billion barrels are divided among the individual nations. At most, all the oil in Antarctica would increase the world's reserves by only a few percents.
As such, my case stands. The profits of mining Antarctica are offset by enviromentalist's concerns. Con's case assumes letting mining on Antarctica would prove a flat Earth, but as source 3 says, there is no notable oil reserves on Antarctica... It's all offshore. This means drilling for it wouldn't reveal a flat earth.
Rebuttal IV: Motion of the Earth.
Con's case assumes the rotation of the Earth doesn't affect the plane. In truth, the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth. This carries the plane along, keeping in line with my example (5). So image the moving floor, where the air around it moves with the floor. When you jump, it's no different than whe you were walking. It would make sense that the force that rotates the Earth would rotate the air around it as well.
Rebuttal V: The Sun.
I'm confused as to what profile pic Con refers to... Either way, his argument doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would the rays move in one direction? Con seems to drop all of this argument in favor of one he never explains. Rather the Sun was nearby or far away, the light would do the same thing.
Rebuttal VI: Blue Marble
Con's "proof" was simply an photo made with odd choices needed to fix lighting errors. As the photographer himself said... (6).
"Now, VIIRS is a non-tilting ocean-color instrument and therefore suffers heavily from sun glint contamination. The fact that I picked January helped since most of the glint would be in the southern hemisphere. Nevertheless, to avoid distracting glint streaks in my image, I would need to limit my coverage to mostly the northern hemisphere. I also could not include the arctic regions of the planet because the Arctic is dark in January. I still wanted to present the imagery "in the round", so I opted to use a near-sided perspective projection from an altitude of just over 2100 kilometers above 20 North by 100 West. This projection results in a very wide-angle presentation such as one might get with a fish-eye lens"
— Norman Kuring
This gave it the appearance of being half a hemisphere stretched over a whole hemisphere.
I'm confused about what "sex" has to do with it... They are clouds. They look like things sometime... If it is altered, it means SFX, not sex. But again, there is no evidence that this photo is altered. As for the 8 photos side by side, this is silly. Each photo is from a different angle, different seasons, and different continents, and used different methods to photograph. There is no evidence here at all. Although, as I see it (keeping angles in mind) all but the 2012 Blue Marble looks the same.
Argument I: Size of the Conspiracy // Errors in the Theory.
Con seems to ignore my argument... I listed several people not related to Google or NASA who found that the Earth was round. He doesn't really counter my argument at all... He does NOTHING to prove the hundreds of thousands of people needed to keep such a conspiracy... There have been 460 people to enter space (7). Did each one keep it's flatness a secret? Despite the hundreds of millions to be gained by revealing the truth?
Con also fails to answer an important question... Why keep the Earth's shape a secret? What's the agenda?
Argument II: Arguments for a Round Earth.
The fact that you see farther when you're higher is evidence of a round Earth. If the Earth was flat, you would see the same distance at any hieght. If anything, you should see less from up high, since you're further away from objects the guy who is lower down can see. However, because of the round Earth, the higher guy can see farther as he sees slightly over the curve:
Con doesn't, by any stretch, prove that the Earth is flat. He gives, at most, no reason to believe in his massive conspiracy.
I made the fast claim because I've seen and evaluated quite a few of these high altitude videos recently, and if you would have paused the video you would have seen for yourself, but to make you happy, I'll provide a few links from Gopro's own site, with a quote, because clearly, YOU have done no research on it. Note that you can only remove this distortion in their studio video editing program.
How Can I Remove the Distortion (Fisheye) Effect in GoPro Studio?
GoPro cameras are famous for their wideR08;angle look. This is beneficial if you want your image to have a large field of view (FOV). However, in some situations you might want to reduce the FOV that you get when shooting in one of the camera"s wide modes. You can remove the fisheye effect to apply a "lens adjustment" to the converted GoPro CineForm file giving it a smaller FOV. Here is the procedure:
Since I accidentally omitted the videos from my last round, I had hoped you had noticed the comment section, but here you go.
"As for water, gravity holds the water flat against the earth" 100% correct, it is the basic physics of water to find a level surface, the lowest possible point, never in recorded history has water formed around a ball. It's nonsense.
Antarctica, first of all no one is allowed to check to see how much resources are there therefore both news pieces are only speculation, so no point bothering with that anymore, but an interesting side note no one has ever circumnavigated the globe from north to south, ever.
As for the sun, it's supposedly 93 BrAZILIAN miles away, light rays should be almost perpendicular to one another, but this isn't the case as seen when the suns come through the clouds at different angles.
As for the blue marble , if you'd have read your wikilink, you'd notice they never said it was a photo as you claim, but a "composite image" like all the rest, a Photoshop, just like mars, Jupiter, all those beatiful images of other planets... Fake.
It seems like you are in complete denial, I saw the word sex. In clouds! Ever see a letter in the clouds? Much less three, in a row, that spell sex!
Again with the conspiracy size stuff, astro-nots get a fat check for life, if one person decides to spill the beans, it isn't hard to make that person look like a fool. What does he have to gain? How? He's going to lose his cushy 6figure acting job. Looney bin, etc remember how much gold is involved in this every year, to do a little Photoshop.
You wanted an agenda, we may have to bring some bible into it. This is one theory, someone, who is more or less in control of the earth (with boundaries and limitations) is trying to make us forget about our maker. With the advent of evolution, the big bang, other habitable world's and more and more mainstream ufo sightings alot more people are becoming atheists, or believing we were seeded from et, reincarnation beliefs are strong, etc. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe he didn't exist. If Jesus came back today as described in prophesy, how hard would it be to convince the world of an alien invasion?
Rebuttal I: Bedford Experiment.
Con says my source, and I, are wrong about light curvature. I'm curious about his explanation. My source does in fact give an explanation of my claim:
"Because the density of air in the Earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the Earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward..." -my source.
Rebuttal II: Acceleration /Balloon Experiment.
My opponent claims the fish-eye effect is obvious... However, it's clear that the Fish-eye effect was removed, as the whole video lacks it. In fact, the only evidence of such an effect is when you see the curvature of the Earth. If Pro is going to link to a source, he should pick a video. Giving us a Youtube Search is not meaningful.
I find Con's water refutation silly... My case still stands. Basic physics teach that the gravity of the sphere points inwards, not downwards. So water at the bottom of the sphere is pushed inwards towards the sphere still... He concedes that gravity holds water in place.
Rebuttal III: Antarctica.
Con's claim is contradictory... He said an article claimed X amount of oil... But as soon as I found contradictory sources, he claims the Government doesn't let anyone in... But that's wrong none-the-less... Many people go to Antarctica for research. Far too many to keep it a secret. In fact, over a few thousand people live in Antarctica during Summer (1). And then there's the 56,000 inhabitants of Greenland, far too close to the North Pole for Con's theory is stand.
Rebuttal IV: Motion of the Earth.
Rebuttal V: The Sun.
The distance of the Sun wouldn't prevent the rays of light from spreading apart... In fact, the further away the Sun, the further apart two rays of light would be. Con' s case is built only on a profile picture showing 3 "rays" of light from the sun only works because it excludes every one for the trillions of possible rays in between.
Rebuttal VI: Blue Marble.
I'm not entire sure what being a composite image has to do with it... Mostly because he doesn't prove it changes anything... I didn't bring up it being composite because of its irrelevancy. A composite image can look the same as any other image. Con would have had to PROVE it was faked, not just say it was because it "could" be.
"It seems like you are in complete denial, I saw the word sex."
You saw clouds doing what clouds do. One picture out of the billions of cloud photos in the world is pointless.
Argument I: Size of the Conspiracy.
"astro-nots get a fat check for life"
On what grounds does Con continuously make these claims? What evidence is there of this "fat check for life?" And if a normal guy claimed the Earth was flat, it'd be easy to make him a fool... But if Buzz Aldrin said so, it'd be nearly impossible to stop the impact, and call an American hero crazy.
Con's theory is ridiculous... Ignoring the fact that a flat Earth could exist with aliens, or the fact that this presumes the voters even believe in the Bible, or the fact that politicians find religion more beneficial than harmful... Consider that EVERY politician uses the existence of Jesus to get elected... There is simply no evidence that this theory exists...
Con forgets he must PROVE his case. Not just say it... And he still doesn't refute the issue about having to keep a secret among hundreds of thousands of people... Including thousands of years of explorers, and hundreds of years of people freely exploring any area of Earth. In fact, millions of ventures are made around the world every year, and Con hasn't proven how the Government keeps the "truth" hidden.
Argument II: Arguments for a Round Earth.
This argument which proved the curvature of the Earth was dropped.
Con failed to prove the Earth was flat... Instead claiming it could be... maybe... He established no offensive prrof, only defensive claims (which is insufficent for meeting one's BOP)...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bob13 1 year 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof was on Con, so he must have at least one successful argument to win. His Bradford Experiment argument failed after Pro pointed out that it failed to account for optic refraction and other factors. All Con said to defend his case was that Pro's source was wrong, and Con used no evidence to effectively discredit his source. Con's next argument was Acceleration. Pro mentioned that the earth is 20,000 miles long, which disproved the balloon experiment. Con's next argument was Antarctica. He claimed that if oil companies were allowed to drill there, they would discover that the earth is flat. Pro says that many people go there for research, and since they didn't find out that the earth is flat, neither would oil companies. Con's next claim was that an airplane would go the same speed moving in any direction. Pro easily disproves this by pointing out the actual speeds for each direction. The rest of my RFD is in the comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate