The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

The earth is a sphere

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,502 times Debate No: 84990
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (167)
Votes (1)

 

Edlvsjd

Con

Bop is on pro, please provide proof that the earth is a sphere. Using everyday observations and scientific experiments. I have 200+ proofs the earth is not a globe.
Philocat

Pro

Firstly, to avoid any nitpicking from Con, I am arguing that the earth is an oblate spheroid, as the earth is not exactly spherical. I will provide a variety of proofs that this is correct.

1. Observation from space

Countless photographs from satellites show the earth is spherical (1). These photos come from many independent sources and have not been shown to be fake, so they are in all likelihood real photographs. Also, there is no conceivable reason why anyone would want to convince the world that the earth was spherical if it actually wasn't.

2. Circumnavigation

It is possible to circumnavigate the earth (go around it in a great circle), but if the earth wasn't spherical then ships would reach the edge of the earth. Because ships don't reach the edge of the earth, this is strong evidence that the earth is edgeless.

3. Gravity

If the earth was not spherical, then there would not be a uniform gravitational strength wherever you are in the world. The fact is that anywhere you go on earth (disregarding changes in altitude) the gravitational strength is the same. Since gravity is a non-contact force following the inverse square law, the constant gravitational strength means that all points on the earth's surface are equidistant from the earth's centre of gravity.

Geometrically, the only shape where all points on its surface are equidistant to its centre is a sphere. Therefore, the earth must be a sphere.

4. Gyroscopes

When one spins a gyroscope in a particular plane, it will remain spinning in that plain regardless of the movement of the gyroscope stand. However, if one spins a gyroscope and observes its movement over 24 hours, it appears to move. The only explanation for this behavior is that the earth itself is rotating around an axis, which further suggest that the earth is a spinning sphere. (3)

5. Dipping distances

When one sails out of sight of a lighthouse, it is not the visibility that eventually hides it from view, it is the observation that it dips below the horizon. But if the earth was flat, then the horizon would not obscure anything. So long as there were no obstructions between two things, they could be seen. But this is not the case. Even in perfect visibility, eventually a lighthouse becomes obscured by the horizon. Since this would not happen on a flat earth, the earth must have a rounded surface. Because this phenomenon is present at all points around the earth, the earth must have a round surface everywhere. If something has a constant round surface, then it must be shaped spherically.

6. Stars

Some stars are visible in the Northern Hemisphere but not the Southern Hemisphere (and vice versa) (2). If the earth was flat then all stars would be visible irrespective of the latitude of the observer. Since this is not the case, the earth must be round.

7. Photographs from airplane windows show that the earth's surface is round. (4)

8. Planets are formed by a centre of gravity in a cloud of rock and gas that draws more and more matter onto it. This manner of growth means that planets can only be spherical; the way planets form does not permit planets of any other shape to exist. Since the earth is a planet, it can therefore only be spherical. (5)

(1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
(2) http://www.skymaps.com...
(3) http://blog.modernmechanix.com...
(4) http://davejoh.com...
(5) http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...-
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Con

I thank pro for accepting this debate and I wish him luck.

Firstly I would like to point out that pro is contradictory with his first two statements. First he points out that the earth is not actually a perfect sphere, but an oblong spheroid. Or pear shaped I believe. As this is not evident in the "photos" of earth as pro points out and provides as a true, not Photoshopped image of earth.

This alone should be ample proof of something fishy, therefore discrediting NASA as a reliable source at the start.
https://youtu.be...
However I will prove that at least one or more of NASA's photos are faked, and it will be assumed, given the circumstances, that all are faked as well.

In this comparison, America has over doubled in size. Proof one.
Blatant copying and pasting of cloud formations. Proof two.

The word "sex" wrote out in cloud formations, really? Proof three.
There are several proofs of NASA Photoshop, these are some of the worst, besides the fact that there are no satellites where there would be thousands, an actual photo of earth should look more like this: proof four.
NaSA admits that most if not all of their "photos" of earth are in fact composites put together in Photoshop. proof five

As for a reason, there are a few theories, the most obvious would be if we weren't convinced, this is treasonous to the American tax payers because trillions have been spent on the name of space exploration. If we found out, this funding would cease, costing jobs etc. Some theories say that Satan himself is involved with references to The Great Deception. Instead of us being created for a purpose, unique in His image, we've turned into random, Godless creatures stuck in an insignificant corner of an endless universe. Everything has turned materialistic as we have lost our true purpose in life.

Gravity.
Ah gravity, that magical force that (without observation) causes things over an uncertain mass to make some things stuck to it, while others float around it in a circle. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims "gravity" does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets. What we can observe is that things of high density, when placed in a less dense medium will sink while less dense objects in a more sense medium rise. At what amount of mass do these magical things happen? It doesn't, it's a theory, and we're taking someone's word that it even exists. Kinda reminds me of some or most religions, telling us to believe something that can't be proven or observed in a real world environment. It's against the rules of this debate, therefore unusable.
http://beforeitsnews.com.... For more gravity shenanigans.

Gyroscopes.
If a gyroscope is affected by the spin of the earth, it would rotate 90" every 6 hours as does the earth, have you observed this? But wait that's not even taking into account the revolution around the sun, which in turn is revolving around the universe at 999 Brazilian miles per hour or whatever ball earthers claim. It would rotate wildly in every direction. It's not probable at all. "It appears to move" lol I like you!

"Dipping distances"?
Lighthouses have been recorded, which is easily researched, to have been seen from far further than what the ball-earthers' circumference of earth should allow. A few examples:

The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.

The Eger" Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.

The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.

The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.

The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the line of sight.
Stars.
You don't see stars on the other side of the disc for the same reason you don't see the sun, it's just too far away, they blend in with the horizon. Aka law of perspective? Think of the railroad tracks going into the distance, the two tracks are the same distance from each other, but they appear to meet, this works on a vertical axis too. Just as the telephone poles get shorter and eventually disappear. It's funny you should mention stars though. Did you know you can see Polaris( a star that is directly over the north pole and doesn't move, not even while we are wobbling around in the "cosmos") from well past the equator, which would be impossible on a ball.

All photos, or videos, 100% of the time, that show a curvature of any kind, are shot through a fish eye lens, which anyone can evaluate and prove. I'm sure I don't have to explain what a fish eye lens is. But in short, it'll curve any line. Until that line is centered, then it flattens, if the camera goes below the horizon past a certain point, the horizon appears to curve outward! Now we all know the earth is not concave, don't we? Or do we... This is the same reason the airplanes' windows are curved.
Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.




Philocat

Pro

Thanks Con!

NASA

Con starts off by questioning why the NASA images show a perfectly spherical image of earth when the earth is actually an oblate spheroid. The reason for this is because it is only very slightly oblate. The equator is only 42.77km higher than the poles (1); considering that the diameter of the earth is 12,756km (2), the earth is only a tiny bit oblate. So when a picture of earth is taken, it will appear to be perfectly spherical just because it is very, very close to being perfectly spherical.

The second image supposedly shows that the USA has doubled in size in two photos. This is easily explained; the orientation at which the image pictures the earth is different. In the 2007 photo, we are looking at an latitude of about 5 degrees whereas the 2012 photo is taken at a latitude of about 20 degrees. Furthermore, the manner in which the NASA photos are taken varies, so the photos aren't going to be exactly the same - that doesn't mean they're faked. (3)

For the alleged cloud copy and pasting, Con does not provide a source for his image. He has not proven that this is a photo taken by NASA and therefore this isn't proof that NASA has faked their images.

The 'sex' in cloud formations is no proof at all. There have been countless cases of clouds exhibiting words/images that are merely coincidental. Besides, why would NASA deliberately risk their so-called deception be giving infantile clues?

Next, Con states that the absence of satellites means that the images of the earth are faked. Firstly, satellites are so tiny compared to the earth that they wouldn't be visible on a large scale photo such as this. Secondly, photo satellites are some of the lowest flying satellites (4), so most satellites would be above them anyway.

The fifth 'proof' isn't a proof at all, it's just an infographic explaining how images of the earth are put together. Just because several images are stitched together in Photoshop, it doesn't mean that they are fake.

Finally, even if NASA was orchestrating a large-scale conspiracy, the existence of spherical images from Russia provide a whole other level of proof that the earth is spherical (5). I'm not just relying on NASA sourced images as proof. Hence Con's attacks do not refute my argument.

Gravity

Con does not believe gravity exists. Which is odd. I'll talk through why gravity exists in the context of science.

How does science work? It starts with an observation. Let's say I take an apple and let go. It is pulled towards the ground.

Now we must ask why this occurs? A hypothesis is created. If a hypothesis stands up to further tests and is not disproved, then we accept it to be empirically true that this hypothesis is correct.

In regards to our apple-dropping observation, the gravity hypothesis has stood up to rigorous tests to the extent that virtually all scientists now accept that it is true. If Con really doesn't believe in gravity, then I invite him to provide a better explanation for why an apple is pulled towards the earth.

Dipping distances

Again, Con does not cite sources for his lighthouse statistics, so for the meantime I will not take them to be true.

Furthermore, the flat earth hypothesis is demonstrably false. If the earth was flat, then someone on one side of the Pacific could shine an extremely luminous light horizontally across the ocean and someone on the other side of the Pacific would be able to see it with a good telescope. But the fact is that no matter how luminous the light is or how strong the telescope is, there is no way that the two observers will be able to see each other. If the earth was flat, they would be able to. But they can't. Ergo, the earth isn't flat.

It's also the reason why lighthouses were built to be tall. If the earth was flat, there would be no point in building a tall lighthouse. The reason lighthouses are built high is so that they can be viewed from further away, which entails that the earth is rounded.

Stars

Con's explanation for the visibility of different stars in the different hemispheres is that the law of perspective hides them from view. But if this was to be a valid explanation, the stars would have to be only about 100 miles above the earth.

Fact is, stars are billions of miles away (6). There are multiple methods that ascertain this, so it is accepted as fact that stars are not as close to the earth as the Flat Earth hypothesis requires.

Finally, the reason that you can see Polaris at very close to the equator in the Southern Hemisphere is because it is not exactly above the North Pole, and actually rotates around it very slightly (7).

Airplane windows

Even if airplane windows distort the earth to appear curved, there is other evidence as well. When Felix Baumgartner jumped from the stratosphere you could see not just a subtle curve, but an extreme curve that could not be an illusion caused by a fish-eye lens. (8)

Planets

If the other planets weren't spherical, then we would often see them shaped elliptically because our 'planes' wouldn't have to be always parallel. The observations of moon orbits also suggest that the planets are spherical.

Con ignores the scientific explanation of how planets are formed, and how they can only be formed spherically and not as a flat circle. If Con says that the earth is 'a plane not a planet' then this raises the question of why there are no other such planes in the universe, and if there are, how could they be formed?

Finally, Con states that images of the planets are 'all clearly fake computer-generated images' by NASA. Apart from this being an unsourced statement, he forgets that there are plenty of non-NASA photos of spherical planets as well as amateur photos from a half-decent telescope.




(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://geography.about.com...
(3) https://www.metabunk.org...
(4) http://www.spacetoday.org...
(5) http://www.theverge.com...
(6) http://www.astronomycafe.net...
(7) https://answers.yahoo.com...
(8)http://i3.mirror.co.uk...'s%20record%20breaking%20free%20fall%20jump
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Con

Very nice so far, I see what you mean by the earth not appearing to be oblate spherical. If the difference is only 4 miles, there's no reason to quibble over that. My question is if it appears to be a perfect sphere, how did they come to this conclusion? And if it is so little a difference, why bother turning sphere into oblate spheroid? Was this measured? Pro has offered a wiki link as a source that says that centripical force causes this bulge at the equator, but it calls for common sense to realize that anything spinning at 1,000 mph will exhibit such centripical force that everything attached to it will be flung wildly into space.(side note. Funny how the astronots needed glass and metal to keep the vacuum of space from sucking out all the air but our atmosphere just kind of sits on the vacuum with no interference). Surely, earth bulges more on one side at a time due to the 18.5 miles per second race track around the sun?( which coincidentally, according to the THEORY of relativity, holds the earth to this insane orbit very delicately, but the earth is said to approach the sun, then somehow, with no opposing force, escapes this massive "gravitational" pull every year, back and forth, saving us from crashing into the sun)

Photoshop
Did you look at the image at all? You can clearly see it has went from about 1/5 the size of a hemisphere to 1/2? Take a measurement from about where Alaska is on both balls (roughly the same point) to Florida. It's clearly larger. Furthermore how many manners Does it really Take NASA to take a photograph? Point and click? They supposedly did it from the moon with 1960's technology. We supposedly have thousand of satellites going around out there, even some said to be light years away as depicted in the Photo of the milky way(rofl).

Supposed pictures and videos(clearly cgi)of faraway planets. Surely someone can take a real, non composite image of our home planet!? There are no videos of the earth rotating. Why not? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them by now, but we only have a handful of photos. They should have the technology and money to put a live cam on the moon with access to all the taxpayers. Not an unreasonable request by any means.
I would like to apologize for not providing a lot of resources, as there is not much, it's out there, but I want to both encourage research, and provide common sense logic in this debate.
A link to the full "photo" that was Photoshopped
http://s24.photobucket.com...

So we see letters all the time in clouds? Surely someone has photos to prove this claim, as you provide no sources to this claim, I will assume it false, although I'm sure a random chance of what might seem like a letter might be made from a cloud, but never a full word, or that word. As to the reason, who knows? It is there is all that matters. Maybe the graphics animators were trying to tell those of us with multi-celled brains without blatantly doing so that it was a fake, kinda funny actually, this could be said of any discrepancies with their "photos".

As for the satellites, there are said to be thousands, surely some of them would show up, and as for the Photo satellites being lower than the rest, baloney, it's far enough out to get a whole photo of earth, it would catch most of the satellites orbiting earth and most of those going around the backside of the earth, but not one is represented, (no stars either, this is because an amateur astrologer would be able to quickly call the errors.) therefore all photos of the earth from NASA are equally presumed fakes for this reason.
My fifth reason I'm showing how NASA Photoshops images of earth, is to prove that they are all Photoshop, if other satellites are further out in space, why not put our trillions of dollars to use and just take a picture?

The image Russia released is a joke at best, if they spent the money to get a satellite out and take a picture, at least they could get the color alignment right! Zoom in and look at a cloud, it will look like you were looking at an old 3-d movie without the glasses, and when did all vegetation turn brown? Pure silliness.

Circumnavigation
Dropped

Gravity.

Could've swore that's exactly what I did, by explaining how density works in reality. I'm trying to figure out what "rigorous tests" were performed to show that the sheer mass of any object can attract other smaller objects, or make an orbit around it. Any sources to this claim? Again, gravity is just a theory. An old one that doesn't make sense unless the earth were a ball, it should be dropped altogether in my opinion.

Gyroscopes
Dropped

Dipping distances.
Sources for lighthouses
https://archive.org...
It's funny you should mention the whole luminous light thing because no one has invented such a powerful light, until Japan did it, and it didn't take a telescope to see it all the way in Chicago.
https://m.reddit.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The reason they make lighthouses taller is that the atmosphere at lower altitudes is thicker than higher up, it in no way entails the rotundity of earth. And you saying that we should be able to see forever goes against the LAW of perception. The more distance between the viewer and the viewed, the more the viewed closes in on the horizon. Just as I explained earlier with the train tracks eventually closing in on each other coming to a point. The vanishing point, it's all very basic. Though yes a telescope will allow things to come into view that should be well over the curve of the earth. As shown in this video.
https://youtu.be...
When NASA put Felix Baumgartner in the sky, the ONLY lens used was a gopro (except at the very first few seconds of the video, when he is inside the craft, and the horizon has flattened out really nice) which, when researched is famous for their fish eye lenses. If the earth was curved this much, we would see an ocean or more than just land, it's as if we can see 1/4 of the earth and its all land! I'm glad you brought this up because at exactly 4:00( again in several places in the video, regardless of altitude) into this video you see the effects of the go Pro cameras bending the shape of the earth in all sorts of zany ways.
https://youtu.be...
Other examples of fish eye lens effects are used here, pause the video at 3:41 to see a concave earth!
https://youtu.be...


This video, even though it uses a fish eye lens, proved the earth is flat, I'll let you try to figure out how...

https://youtu.be...

https://youtu.be...
Real videos from amateurs who've launched balloons are readily available, which show no curvature at any altitude, and the horizon never drops below eye level.
https://youtu.be...

https://youtu.be...
Stars.
The explanation is exactly what I meant it to be, the stars are not trillions of light years away. I will not be discussing the firmament in this debate, as this is a whole different discussion that would require a lot more room, so let's stick to the rules, you can't prove the stars are Very far away with observation or experimentation, so this cannot be used, I will ask you this, if the earth is spinning, orbiting around the sun, and the sun is orbiting around the center of the universe at some speed that is preposterous to say the least, why don't the constellations change? Not even a little bit, we should see a whole new set of stars if the earth were on a different side of the solar system every six months. Also as we approach each side, the stars should appear to move closer together or farther away depending on where they and we are in the universe. They don't, it's flat and there's a dome.
Polaris is shown to not move at all by taking a slow exposure photograph of it shown here.

Philocat

Pro

Firstly, Con questions why 'astronauts need glass and metal to keep the vacuum of space from sucking out all the air but our atmosphere just kind of sits on the vacuum with no interference'.
Simply, the earth's gravity holds our atmosphere in, and is in equilibrium with the pressure gradient force that tries to suck our atmosphere out into the vacuum of space. Now I think about it, this is another proof that gravity exists; if it didn't exist, then we wouldn't have an atmosphere.

Photoshop

I did look at the images, but I'll point out again that these are composite images that are put together in different ways and so some are bound to be distorted. This does not mean they are faked. The reason that most blue marble photos are composite photos is that photo satellites are relatively low altitude compared to most satellites and so are not high enough to take single-shot photos of earth. Of course we have satellites that can see the earth from far out enough to see the whole sphere, but these aren't photo satelites.

Furthermore, nobody has claimed that there are satelites that are light years away. Our furthest satellite, Voyager 1, is a tiny fraction of that distance away (1).

Next, Con asks why someone cannot take 'real, non composite images of earth'. Well, someone already has, from the moon (2) and the Russians have taken a single shot image as well, which is far too detailed to be faked. (3)
Also, he queries why there are no videos of the earth rotating. Again, videos do actually exist. (4)

In regards to copy and pasting of clouds, I'm afraid I cannot accept that argument unless it is shown to be an actual, undoctored photo from NASA.

About letters in clouds, they must exist due to probability. Words aren't that complex patterns (especially short ones like sex) and clouds form a random shape. Considering the sheer quantity of clouds, it is inevitable that some will randomly look like words, just like some people see animals or symbols in clouds.

Con's next statement is that 'there are said to be thousands [of satellites], surely some of them would show up'. This is a fallacy. If something is comparatively too small to be seen, then adding a few more won't make them more likely to show up (admittedly, at some point they will become so densely populated that they will blot out parts of the earth, but there are not nearly enough satellites for this to happen). For example, if I put a piece of dust on a cinema screen it won't show up. Even if I put thousands of specks of dust on the screen, it still won't show up. Their insignificant size as well as the fact that the earth is reflecting huge amounts of light both contribute to the lack of satellites we can see in earth photographs.

Finally, the Russian photograph's colour is slightly different because their photos also capture infrared light, which is why the plants look rusty red (3). This does not by any means constitute proof that the photos are fake. It even implies that they are real, since a faked image would look exactly what we would expect it to look like.

Circumnavigation

Con has conceded this argument because he has dropped it. Since it has gone unopposed, it assumes de facto veracity and will fulfil my burden of proof if it remains unrefuted.

Gravity

The reason that dense things sink in relation to less dense things is because of gravity! What other force would pull dense things down? If we had a vacuum containing a mixture of oil and water in outer space (two liquids with differing density), the water would not sink below the oil despite being denser. Why? Because of Newton's first law. Something will not accelerate (i.e move from a stationary position) if there is no resultant force acting upon it. In space, there is no force so the water will not sink. But on earth, the water does sink. What has changed between the two scenarios? The introduction of a gravitational force. In conclusion, empirically we can observe that it is gravity that causes denser matter to sink below less dense matter.

You don't need a rigorous test to empirically prove that gravity exists. Just jump out of a plane. If gravity does not exist, you will not fall (since there is no resultant downward force). But you do fall. Therefore gravity exists (unless there is some other force that causes you to fall, but none have been suggested as of yet).

The earth has not collapsed in on itself because it is not hollow. There are thousands of miles of rock, magma and iron between the earth's centre of gravity and the surface. It cannot collapse in on itself because, 1, the gravitational force isn't strong enough and, 2, there are billions of tons of rock and iron between the core and the surface. It's in the way.

Gyroscopes

I'll forget this argument because I honestly don't know enough about gyroscopes to debate about their activity. Nevertheless, my burden of proof is still firmly established in my other arguments.

Dipping distances

Con's source does not give data that entails that a lighthouse would be visible beyond the horizon. I even calculated some of it myself (I'm a student of marine navigation) and found nothing that refutes the notion of a curved surface of the earth.

The Japanese laser being seen in Chicago is not backed up by either one of Con's source. His first source said that a green light was seen in Chicago and his 2nd source states that green laser was tested in Japan; it doesn't follow that the sources are referring to the same light.

Granted, the atmosphere is thicker at lower altitudes. But why is this relevant? Visibility is lower at higher altitudes (due to more air having been cooled below its dew point) which is what I presume Con was trying to argue. In other words, the 'air being thicker at lower altitudes' does not entail that it is beneficial to build tall lighthouses. Lighthouses were built higher so they could be seen from further away (5).

The law of perception only limits how far we can see because our eyes cannot render an image of something very far away, if we had a powerful telescope and pointed it east from Shanghai, we would be able to see California if the earth was flat. Since we couldn't manage to see California even with a very powerful telescope, it follows that the earth cannot be flat. The law of perception only entails that our eyes cannot see something distinctly from a long distance away, this is mitigated if one uses a powerful telescope.

The video Con cites that allegedly proves that some things can be seen through a telescope that should be beyond the horizon does nothing of the sort. Nothing within that video backs up that assertion.

High photos

Regarding Felix Baumgartner, I do not deny that GoPro lenses can bend the image of the earth. But for the vast majority of the video the earth was shaped as a sphere, only occasionally being concave. This suggests that the earth is a sphere and the concave earth is an anomaly caused by the lens.

I watched Con's videos of the amateur balloon flights. Both of them show a very slight curvature of the earth (just place a ruler on the computer screen). They are also not high enough to start seeing a noticeable curve.

Stars

You can prove that the stars are trillions of miles away. First we can measure the sizes of stars using stellar interferometry (6) and we can tell their temperature by observing the wavelength of the colour light they radiate and using Wien's Law (WT = 2.898 × 10^–3 m K), where T is temperature and W is the wavelength of the star's colour. Since we know temperature and diameter, we can find a star's luminosity using the Stefan Boltzmann law (L = sigmaT^4.A)(8) and then compare it to the luminosity we observe on earth to find the distance away (F = L/�pi.d^2 )(9). This proves that stars are trillions of miles away.

_____

(1) http://go.nasa.gov...
(2) http://bit.ly...
(3) http://bit.ly...
(4) http://bit.ly...
(5) http://bit.ly...
(6) http://bit.ly...
(7) http://bit.ly...
(8) http://bit.ly...
(9) http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Con

First of all, about the pressure gradient, it doesn't sound plausable, please explain further. I don't think I can buy it, common sense should tell you that if a vacuum is close to a non vacuum medium, said medium will be lost in such a vast vacuum without proper barriers. I hope the voters have some. Maybe a source could validate this claim.

About the satellites, of course they have satellites that are further out, so why can't they put a camera on one of these satellites? Seems a lot of trouble to make several scans of earth, then put them together in Photoshop, while making up the missing pieces, and you can't even get the scale right? it just doesn't make sense. With the some 2500+ satellites in orbit for some several decades, we should have hundreds if not thousands of videos and pictures of earth circulating. As you point out, Russia claims one, we have a handful from one supposed trip to the moon.

If we don't have any satellites light years away, how did they come up with the you are here image? It looks a lot like the rest of the images NASA spits out, like those shown from Hubble and others,they did a real good job creating this image in Photoshop! Hmmm. pluto is my favorite lol.
As for the video, I meant a video of the full earth, in rotation, not a fisheye stream from high altitude. https://youtu.be...

As for the copying and pasting, that photo, which I thought you could recognize is the 2002 official composite image from NASA. Feel free to download it from them and zoom in yourself.

As for words in clouds, especially this one, no, just... No, not in an official release from NASA, common sense will tell anyone this was purposely put here. An elephant, yes, a symbol, perhaps, a letter, maybe, but a string of letters together in a line forming that spells sex? Lol...On the day NASA chose to take a picture? Impossible.

Maybe you can't see 2500+ satellites halfway to the moon, but 2500 giant pieces of aluminum would reflect light back to the camera, especially if the earth were totally lit by the sun on the side of the observer. Also, with no atmosphere, there has to be at least one star visible!?

Circumnavigation
Apologies, I'm doing all of this from my cell and I'm not sure why this part was left out, but 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.

Gravity
Smoke rises against gravity, as do other things, in not saying things don't fall down, that's ignorant, if you wanna call that gravity, that's up to you, I'm saying, once again, nothing proves that by the sheer mass of an object, things will be stuck to, attracted to, or orbits around it. Ever.

As far as I can tell, what's at the center of the earth is only a theory, sure you can come up with a hypothesis, and do some reverse math or what have you to prove this to some, but as a record stands of 6 miles deep we've ever dug, we haven't broken through the crust, so it is non provable. Therefore nonusable in this debate. The picture in all textbooks showing the multiple layers of the earth is a lie, if they even got past the crust, how do they get a probe through all that molten lava?

Gyroscopes
Conceded

Dipping distances
The reason lighthouses are high altitude is not to see it over any curve, there is sea splash, wells, and waves, which cause little or no visibility at lower altitudes.
Even powerful telescopes will not let you see hundreds of miles over swells, waves etc. But as my video shows, when something appears to go over the curve of the earth, a telescope will prove this wrong.

High photos

So, the anomaly that makes the earth appear to be concave when the horizon is below the focus point has nothing to do with it appearing to be convex when it is above? Try again. This lens turns any straight line not centered into a curved one. But it can never break the other rule of the horizon, it always rises to the eye of the observer, if you will notice the peak of the horizon is always eye level with the observer, if the iss were actually in orbit, far away from a ball, the horizon would drop as the curve fell away, and any non fishy videos showing slight curvature have only seen the extent of the sun's spotlight rays.
Https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I see you haven't watched or figured out how the rocket launch proves flat earth, do this with me, go watch the go fast rocket launch, sadly it was shot using a gopro, as shown by the "waving " horizon, but if you pause the video just as the rocket reaches a peak(stopping abruptly), and starts to fall, you should see a familiar face. Keep this in mind when you enter the time and date in the description into this useful website. Or I'll do it for you rather.
http://www.timeanddate.com...
They are based in The usa, lad Vegas or new Mexico, and the sun appears to be in the right spot, but the tiny moon should only be visible from the opposite side of the globe, because it is above Australia.

Stars
Pro has provided a bad link for a source and is henceforth building an argument from nothing. I hope you can fix this, and maybe leave the math out of this, remember "with observation and scientific experiments. "
Philocat

Pro

Atmosphere

Common sense does say that if a vacuum is close to a non-vacuum, the latter wil be lost into the former. However, this is only the case if there are no other forces at play. But since gravity is acting on the atmosphere (just as it is acting on us), it cancels out the force of the vacuum pulling the atmosphere outwards (1). In other words, the fact that we still have an atmosphere proves that there is a downward force pulling the atmosphere towards earth. This force is gravity. If Con denies that gravity exists, then he must explain why we still have an atmosphere.

Satellites

NASA probably could put cameras on high-altitude satellites, but for what purpose? We can still take composite photos of the earth from low altitude satellites so there is no point investing in the added cost of propelling a photo satellite to higher altitudes.

True, it is more complicated to take composite images of earth, but because the scans are taken at a lower altitude they can take more detailed photos (since they are closer to the earth). If a single-shot photo was to be taken, it would have to be very far out and consequently the detail of the photo would not be as good. The scale might not be perfect (stitching a detailed composite image together can be very challenging) but it still succeeds in what the photo aims to do, which is to give an accurate representation of what the earth looks like from space.

Regarding videos, any video of the whole earth rotating would have to be taken from very far out yet photo satellites are low altitude - it is much easier to take videos of the earth rotating from a low altitude satellite because these are easier to launch.

The 'you are here' image is not an actual photo (we have not and probably never will leave the Milky Way), it is a composite visualisation created by combining all the star maps from all places around the earth and combining them to portray what the milky way looks like. I can't explain it very well, but this source explains how it is done: (2).

As for the video, how do you know that the stream was taken by fish eye lenses? If they were taken using fish eye lenses, then wouldn't the part of the ISS we see in the stream also be distorted? Generally, photos tell the truth and the burden of proof lies on the person thinking it is fake. It is fallacious to insist that someone prove that a photos if true. Therefore, Con must prove that the stream showing the earth's curvature is taken by a fish eye lens.

The 2002 photo does have identical cloud patterns, I admit that. But Con must remember that these are composite photos, and hence the stitching process can duplicate some parts. Furthermore, the scans of the earth leave some parts of the earth uncaptured, and so the photographers need to use Photoshop's clone tool to fill in these parts of the globe (3).

The 'sex' isn't even particularly clear. It could alternatively be 'SFX'. Either way. it may be unlikely, but it is by no means impossible (it is only three letters, and in the original image they aren't even the right way up). The existence of that particular pattern does not prove that NASA have faked all their pictures of the earth and nor does it prove that the earth is flat.

Regarding satellites, the photos of the earth are short-exposure takes; meaning that only the brightest parts of the image are visible. Less bright parts of the image would require a long-exposure shot to become visible. Since the earth is far, far brighter than stars or satellites, we can only see the earth (4).

Con drops the Russian image of earth.

Circumnavigation

Con's model of the flat earth posits an 'ice wall' that surrounds the earth, after which one would fall off. This theory doesn't work though, because people have actually walked across Antarctica (5) and haven't fallen off. This refutes the notion the earth is flat with the north pole at the centre.

Gravity

Smoke rises because it is hotter and therefore less dense than the air around it. This means that the upthrust exerted on the smoke is greater than the gravitational pull of the earth and there is a resultant upward force.

I will reiterate, unless Con presents a better explanation compared to gravity explaining why objects are pulled towards the earth, his theory will remain incomplete and I will win the debate. We might not be able to directly prove that a mass exerts an attractive force just by virtue of its mass, but we still observe gravity every day and the best explanation is that a force-due-to-mass does exist. Science isn't about absolute proofs, it's about finding the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Whilst we may not have dug deeper than 6 miles towards the centre of the earth, we can tell what's inside the earth. Firstly, we can tell the mass of the earth by measuring the pull of gravity, which is proportionate to mass. If we know the mass, we can approximate what's inside the earth. Secondly, the earth has a magnetic field so the earth must contain a significant amount of a magnetic substance (most likely iron). Lastly, we observe that volcanoes spew out molten lava and that there is magma inside volcanoes; which informs us that underneath the surface of the earth there is molten rock.

Dipping distances

Spray and waves only affect the visibility to the height at which they reach. Most spray and waves do not rise more than three metres. Above this height, they have no affect on visibility and therefore it is actually better than at higher altitudes (where there is more condensation). If lighthouses were only tall in order to avoid the reduction in visibility caused by spray and waves, they would only need to be about four metres tall. Yet your average lighthouse is about 20m tall.

If a powerful telescope is placed above the height of the highest swell (which would only be about 4 metres above sea level), it would be able to see across the Pacific Ocean if the earth was flat. This is a truism, since there is nothing that could obscure its line of sight. Since a telescope four metres above sea level cannot see across an ocean, it logically follows that the earth cannot be flat.

The video of the ship going over the horizon is irrelevant. I didn't try to argue that the earth is round because of the way that ships go over the horizon. What I am arguing is that, if the earth was flat, there would be no reason why a powerful telescope could not see across an ocean if it was placed at a height that would avoid the swell obscuring the line of sight.

High photos

Admittedly, the Felix Baumgartner example probably wasn't the best one for me to use because of the fish eye lens. But amateur balloon launches that show a slight curvature of the earth do not use fish eye lens (because if they did, the distortion would be far larger).

Sun

Taking pictures of the sun directly causes lens flare, which is why it looks a lot bigger than it actually is.

GoFast

I watched the video and, Con is right, you can see the moon at the highest altitude. But even if the moon's position was directly above Australia at that time and date, this wouldn't mean that the rocket couldn't see it. Why? Because the moon is roughly 230,000 miles away (6). The moon isn't far enough around the globe (away from the US) to be unseen from a high altitude rocket; they aren't on opposite sides of the globe. (7)

Stars

I apologise for the bad source. Here is a working source to back up my claim (8).

Con asks me to leave out the mathematics. But he did challenge me to prove that the stars are billions of miles away. Obviously we cannot directly observe a distance but we can indirectly calculate one. Science is built upon proven mathematical formula that give us most of our advanced scientific proofs. Con is being unscientific if he chooses to ignore the role of mathematics.

__

(1) http://bit.ly...
(2) http://bit.ly...
(3) http://go.nasa.gov...
(4) http://go.nasa.gov...
(5) http://bit.ly...
(6) http://bit.ly...
(7) http://bit.ly...
(8) http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 4
Edlvsjd

Con

Atmosphere
So the vast vacuum of space has no chance vs the pull of the earth, that's some real power! Yet birds and smoke, have no problem taking off and defying gravity? We still have an atmosphere because there's a dome of silicate. Since I "must explain it"

Satellites
How is it more cost effective to scan the earth several(I'm assuming more than 6) times, using several different cameras, and pay a guy to stitch it together, than to turn the discover (or any of the others flying around out there) around, and take a while picture of where it came from? It's not. With the money were paying it should be comparable to the composites. I can understand not doing this often, but never? My point is if they're just scanning sections of the earth and stitching them, could this be done on a flat earth? Yes. As for being accurate? We'll have to let the voters be the judge, so far I have without a doubt provided ample proof most, if not all images from NASA are a Photoshop rendition of reality, and not actual reality. Easier to launch lol you could put an expensive camera on a high altitude plane and come up with a composite. That cognitive dissonance is affecting your common sense.
I understand fully how the you are here image was produced, in Photoshop, but you dodged my point, it looks like any other image they provide, so how can we tell what is a real photo, or merely another "representation"? As you have already admitted, most videos are shot through fish eye lens and they look like the live feed they provide.

You have to compare with both the fish eye lens and the real, non fish eye videos to see that the curve is the same as the fish eye, with the peak of the horizon at eye level, crop the feed off where the blackness of space starts, and paste a stationary piece of equipment like the piece of aluminum that's holding its own in fluctuating temperatures of up to 2500° C! It would be a lump of glowing hot liquid. Do green screens not exist in your world? With the multi-million dollar NASA income, it isn't hard to do some video editing. Though this is harder to prove, the most damming evidence is the fake videos from inside and around the iss, when humans get in the picture.
Multiple bubbles seem to come out from places.

swim kicking...

don't worry about that toolbox, the scuba divers will pick it up off the green screen after the show.

https://youtu.be...



And little slip ups like saying you are filming in the US...
https://youtu.be...

these guys are simply hanging upside down! Check out those red faces.
http://www.wildheretic.com...
Circumnavigation
The link pro provided about a guy going across Antarctica is doubtful, and this is the only person on earth who did it, and it took a little over a month! Antarctica is over 5 million square miles according to ballers model. Several seaman have gone around Antarctica, and the fastest took 1 year and 3 months, which doesn't line up. Early travelers like captain cook did this and said he took 60,000 nautical miles and 3-4 years, the video didn't show that he went from one coast to the other, as you can see in the flat earth map, there are several peninsula that he may have treked to on skis, in blizzards, etc. I did a little more research, not just a wiki link. The edge may or may not be there, it may be an infinite plain. Admiral Byrd was the first to take a plane there, and now you can't just go there and explore, you have to get permission, and you will be guided. The Antarctic treaty, which is the longest treaty ever held, makes sure no one gets close to finding out.

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

Gravity
As for a reasonable explanation about why things go down, we may never know, several theories exist, and sound a lot better than what mainstream provides, like the flat earth is ascending, but NONE can be proven, and the bop rests on pro, so I can't say exactly. Now whether that proves the earth is a globe? No. As you cannot show where the mass of an object causes things to stick to the bottom of, or orbit around it. As NASA and the science community used gravity as a catch-all to explain a number of things, these things are improbable as well.
Which leads to the next statement about the core of the earth. Magnetic core huh? This would have to mean everything sticking to or orbiting the earth would have to be composed of metal! False. Molten lava comes from underground doesn't prove the earth is round, but it may be proof of a real hell.

Dipping distances

I'm sure a powerful telescope could see some distance more, but you are still using your eye, and you can't see that far even with the best amateur telescope available as wave can reach 800 ft, and these would only blend in with the horizon as well
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
4 meters lol.

High photos

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Any curvature shown is only the line which the sun has stopped illuminating.






The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.




Sun
Yes there is a flare, but there is also flare at ground level, none look this big, and you wouldn't see a hotspot if it weren't right above the clouds.
Go fast
When did Australia not reside on the opposite of the globe from the United States? Of course pro provided a bad link as proof of this, and there are no more chances of rebuttal, I will say this, if it were even close to not being blocked by the earth, it would be closer to the horizon, and since it is so very small, proofed that it does not go around the earth, only goes a distance away from the United States so that it blends in with the horizon.

Stars
Not saying math doesn't have a great deal in science, just that if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it fully, some voters may not understand complex equations, and these laws often include factors used by the disposable gravity.
Philocat

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con! This is always an interesting topic to debate.

Atmosphere

The size of a vacuum does not affect the strength of the pressure gradient force between itself and a non-vacuum; so space being vast does not mean that the atmosphere is pulled out even more. The fact remains, that gravity balances out the pressure gradient force and this is why we have a stable atmosphere. To ignore this and instead randomly assert that a 'dome of silicate' contains our atmosphere is willful ignorance. Firstly, it is completely unproven and secondly, it would stop satellites and rockets leaving the atmosphere and it would stop meterorites (unless, of course, they break through the dome, but this would mean that our atmosphere would have leaked out millions, if not billions, of years ago).

Birds 'defy gravity' because of their wing shape and the flapping of their wings (1), but this is not really relevant.

Satellites

It is more cost effective because it is easier and cheaper to launch low-altitude satellites than high-altitude satellites. A high altitude plane would use a ton of fuel to go all over the earth so that wouldn't be cheap either. Also, as I said in the last round, using composite photos engenders a higher-quality resulting photograph.

Con seems to present a false dichtomy between a photoshop altered photo and reality. For example, a fashion magazine model might only have photoshop-altered photos, but it doesn't follow that the photos are faked. They are still dispaying reality, just touched-up.

Regarding fish eye lenses, I didn't admit that most videos are shot through fish eye lenses. This is because it is false. It is actually quite a rare sight to see a video recorder with a fish eye lens because they distort the image, so there is little point using them most of the time.

Besides, even if we disregard the composite images we can still see from single-shot photos (such as from the moon) that the earth is a sphere. True, someone can quite easily say that NASA are not to be trusted, but on what grounds? Sure, they use photoshop to stitch together composite photos, but at least they admit to it. If it was a massive conspiracy, the size of the secret would be too large to contain. Considering all the people involved in space exploration since the mid-20th century (thousands, if not millions of people), there is no way that a conspiracy this size could be contained.

Even if NASA was a conspiracy, it wouldn't explain the shared observations from Roscosmos, ESA or the CNSA. Ultimately, Con violates Occam's Razor, a fundamental rule of rational investigation, because he is arguing for an explanation that makes a lot more assumptions than the main explanation.

The burden of proof is on someone to prove that something is faked. Con cannot simply shout 'green screens' and win the debate.

The supposed appearance of bubbles doesn't prove anything. NASA have even produced pictures of bubbles in space (2).

Astronauts kicking also doesn't prove anything. Why shouldn't they kick? Kicking doesn't have to do anything useful.

An astronaut accidentely dropped a tool bag (3). Is that supposed to prove that it's fake?

The 'slip up' has been misconstrued. The astronaut wasn't referring to the location of filiming, he was referring to the location of the caller. 'Where I'm talking to you right now' can easily be taken to refer to the location of the person calling.

Circumnavigation

Con continues to clutch at straws here. The time that Ousland completed the crossing in isn't infeasible considering he was skiing; I calculated it to be about 50 miles a day which isn't particularly difficult for a competent long-distance skiier.
Also he went via the south pole, a place reached by quite a few other people as well. But the flat earth model does not have a south pole. That's problematic for the theory is it not?

Of course it takes longer to sail round Antarctica, it's a much longer distance.

To claim that the earth could be an 'infinite plane' is unproven, and it also contradicts the accounts of the many people who have sailed round the Antarctic continent.

Finally, whilst one requires guidance for a modern Antarctic trip, back in the day of the initial Antarctic explorations there were no legal boundaries, but nobody reported infinite plains or the earth's edges (which are the only two possible ways in which the flat earth model can fit in Antarctica).

Gravity

We can never 100% prove anything in science, it is about finding the best explanation. So far, gravity is the best explanation because it fits into everything. From quantum mechanics to early cosmology. As a matter of fact, without gravity there is no explanation at all of why there are celestial objects at all. Without gravity, everything would just be floating randomly - the reason we have stars and planets is because there is a force drawing things together.

The 'earth accelerating upwards theory' is incomplete, since it raises the obvious question of what causes this acceleration. Newton's first law tells us that acceleration can only be due to a resultant force. Without observing a resultant force, we have no justification for positing that the earth is being accelerated upwards.

Con seems to misunderstand science. It's not about proving absolute facts, it's about observing something and picking the best explanation for why it occurs. Hence I don't need to prove that gravity absolutely exists, I just need to explain why it is the best explanation for why things fall.

Con goes on to make the statement:

'Magnetic core huh? This would have to mean everything sticking to or orbiting the earth would have to be composed of metal! False.'

But it is not magnetism that causes objects to stick to the earth or orbit around it, this role goes to gravity. Of course, Con does not believe that gravity exists, but in this case he is begging the question by assuming that gravity doesn't exist in order to make this statement.

Dipping distances

Telescopes can see into the depths of space - billions of miles away. A distance of 7000NM (roughly the distance between Shanghai and San Francisco) should be easy to be see over with a powerful telescope (admittedly not an old-fashioned nautical telescope).

I admit I was wrong with the wave heights, but my point stands. If one stands at the top of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco (which is higher than 800 feet) and points a very powerful telescope in a Westerly direction, he should be able to see China if the world was flat. But this can never happen no matter how powerful a telescope he has. This completely refutes the notion of a flat earth.

Con's horizon photos are taken at a low altitude and so would not show any curvature. When one goes to a high enough altitude he shall see a curved horizon. Spyplanes show this, satellites show this, rockets show this, high-enough baloons show this. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a round earth.

The picture of the 'dogcam' 20 miles high appears to show a flat horizon, but the source video shows nothing of the sort (4). Go to 7 minutes in, we can clearly see curvature.

Sun

The reason that flare from the sun is much more extreme in space is because there is no atmosphere to dissipate the light. This is just simple physics.

Australia

Australia is only about 90 degrees of longitude away from Western USA, so no, they're not on opposite sides of the globe.

Stars

I will remind voters that it was Con who challenged myself to prove the long-established fact that stars are billions of miles away. It just so happens that science is complex and one requires complex equations to prove certain things. Anyway, we don't need to use maths to prove it; the fact that the moon landings didn't go past any stars on the way to the moon proves that the stars aren't at the altitude that flat earthers claim they are.

______________________________-

(1) http://bit.ly...
(2) http://go.nasa.gov...
(3) http://bbc.in...
(4) http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 5
167 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Well of course they were programmed since birth. So unprogram them. It may not be easy, but it is well doable.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Minds, even those claiming to be open, will close to the idea, until they see that certain proof about it.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Your mind's eye sees a ball when the word earth comes up this is the way it was program since birth
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Fruitless. I am trying, but society is programmed to disregard all information without proper examination.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
@Edlv
Unless you bring society with you, and prove to then the benefit of ascention.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
http://blog.modernmechanix.com... you should claim this
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
The moral of the monkey story is do not go against what society tells you or you will be ridiculed do not ask questions
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
Congratspl philocat
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
The monkeys didn't climb the ladder because they didn't want to get there monkey butts beat up,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
EdlvsjdPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Conduct was about the same on both sides. Instigator and Contender were relatively polite, especially in address. Grammar- About the same. Convincing arguments- Con's arguments were quite literally a conspiracy, but they were improperly supported with evidence (e.g. sources). On top of that, Instigator discredited practically every source of evidence, rather than actually rebutting them. Contender provided adequate sources on each round (with a couple exceptions), and all arguments flowed in a thorough manner. Sources- While both sides provided sources, and neither side had necessarily 'flawless' sources, Contender's did on average substantiate his argument significantly better. For example, Instigator attempted to call out NASA on "flawed images", but could not relate the all of sources back to NASA.