The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

The earth is a spheroid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/5/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,304 times Debate No: 106395
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (109)
Votes (2)

 

Edlvsjd

Con

I contend that the place we call home could not possibly be a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference as modern astronomy claims. My opponent carries the burden of this truism. He must prove, conclusively, curvature or axial rotation, preferably both. The proof must be presented through the scientific method. He must start in round one and post only the word forfeit in the last round, since it is his burden, and I'm using the first round for clarification. Good luck.

Voters must use OPT-IN voting standards when voting
MagicAintReal

Pro

I accept. I will not however, write forfeit in the last round.
I'd prefer to write "extend" or "forwarding."
Reminder to voters and moderators:
Opt-in serves to remove sh*tty votes. Opt-in voting standards apply.

Definitions

Earth - the planet on which we live, the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

spheroid - a sphere-like but not perfectly spherical body.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

sphere - a round solid figure.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

body - a material object.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

rdaius - a straight line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...


*The Earth is a Spheroid*

The Earth is an imperfectly round, solid, material object because...


1. Satellites orbit the Earth.

We launch satellites into Earth's orbit by having the satellite hit a critical speed, called the orbital velocity, given the size of the satellite and its distance from the Earth, necessarily a radius.

Currently there are over 1,700 satellites orbiting the Earth successfully right now.
https://www.ucsusa.org...

The equations for orbital speed, acceleration, and period of a satellite necessarily include the average radius of orbit for the satellite or the distance from center of the central planet.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com...

These equations only work if the central planet is a sphere or spheroid, because as noted, they use a radius to calculate everything...the calculations are working, and you can thank them for your GPS too.

How is it that we can accurately calculate and successfully execute getting all of these satellites into Earth's orbit if our calculations are all centered around a spheroid mass and the Earth is flat?
The calculations would fail without a central spherical or spheroid body.

The moon is also a satellite and for the same reason.
Its orbital velocity is proportional to its average radius from the center of the spheroid mass, the Earth, and because earth is round, the moon maintains an average radius about the Earth.


2. The Earth is too far along in its planetary formation to be flat.

The planets and the sun all formed from a gas rich nebula.

Within the nebula, "as gravity pulls material in the collapsing cloud closer together, the center of the cloud gets more and more compressed and, in turn, gets hotter, much of the cloud begins rotating in the same direction, and the rotating cloud eventually flattens into a disk that gets thinner as it spins."
http://hubblesite.org...

This flat disk is called a protoplanetary disk because it is the beginning, not complete form of a planet.
This is really the only time the Earth was ever flat.

At every moment after this protoplanetary disk state, gravity and coalescence made the earth very rocky and globular.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

The Earth is currently about 4.5 billion years old, which is way too old to be in the beginning stages of planetary formation which negates that it is still flat.
The Earth is too mature to be a flat protoplanetary disk.
https://pubs.usgs.gov...


3. All other planets in the solar system formed similarly and are all spheroids.

We know that "the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago" from the same gas rich nebulae with the same process, i.e. collapsing of gas-->protoplanetary disk-->gravitationally dominant spherical mass reaching orbital velocity about the sun.
https://pubs.usgs.gov...

All of the other planets in our own solar system are spherical or spheroid.
Here are *actual* telescope shots of the other planets in the solar system.
https://www.youtube.com...

Notice that every planet is spherical or spheroid.


4. Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Here's a video of the Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Go in to the video at about 53 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com...

What shape is the Earth's shadow?
It's round like a sphere or spheroid, just like all other planets and moons in the solar system.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Con

I do not accept that definition for earth, solely because " the third planet from the sun in the solar system, orbiting between Venus and Mars." Is assuming the heliocentric model. In most flat earth models, Venus and mars are not physical terra firma. It is minor, and I accept the first part, mostly. Earth is the place we all live.

"We launch satellites into Earth's orbit by having the satellite hit a critical speed, called the orbital velocity, given the size of the satellite and its distance from the Earth, necessarily a radius."

This is the claim put forth by the heliocentric model. I see no reason to believe it, as you've not given a reason, and have good reason to say it is gibberish.

"Currently there are over 1,700 satellites orbiting the Earth successfully right now."

Another unevidenced assumption.

"The equations for orbital speed, acceleration, and period of a satellite necessarily include the average radius of orbit for the satellite or the distance from center of the central planet."

Maybe we can get to the point soon. I haven't seen any evidence for the claims stated so far, which makes them assumptions.

"These equations only work if the central planet is a sphere or spheroid, because as noted, they use a radius to calculate everything...the calculations are working, and you can thank them for your GPS too."

This seems to be the closest thing to evidence that we will see. His 1st piece of evidence is that GPS works, which prove satellites orbit a spherical earth.

1. GPS was used long before satellites were invented, and back in the 40's, the term was triangulation or trilateralation. We empirically see towers, er, "satellites" multiplying in front of us. Get in between 3 of those towers and your position is sent to the USGS, who control the data coming to your gps, is mapped onto the supposed glibe, then sent to your device. The system is far less expensive, and is still under development, and has cost taxpayers $150m in continued upgrades.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

http://www.insidegnss.com...

https://www.google.com...

Several obvious discrepancies lie with the claimed existence of satellites, like the temperature of the thermosphere, where many reside and the fact that 99% of the world's international data is transferred via undersea cables, but since my opponent carries this burden of proving they exist, and ive given alternate (and more probable) reason that GPS exists, I'll let him respond, and lead the arguments.

"The moon is also a satellite and for the same reason.
Its orbital velocity is proportional to its average radius from the center of the spheroid mass, the Earth, and because earth is round, the moon maintains an average radius about the Earth."

Again, an unevidenced claim that assumes your model. I'm well aware of what the heliocentric model sates. I've studied it extensively. I graduated ball earth university, and am a sophomore in flat earth school. I need evidence for the claims.

2. "The Earth is too far along in its planetary formation to be flat."
https://4.bp.blogspot.com...

The earth hasn't moved an inch since it's conception. See that works? I can make unevidenced claims and assumptions too.

"The planets and the sun all formed from a gas rich nebula."

The planet's are just wandering stars and are placed in the firmament alongside the sun.

"Within the nebula, "as gravity pulls material in the collapsing cloud closer together, the center of the cloud gets more and more compressed and, in turn, gets hotter, much of the cloud begins rotating in the same direction, and the rotating cloud eventually flattens into a disk that gets thinner as it spins."
http://hubblesite.org...;

Another unevidenced claim with a link to some diagrams and cartoons presented as evidence, with more unevidenced claims.

"This flat disk is called a protoplanetary disk because it is the beginning, not complete form of a planet.
This is really the only time the Earth was ever flat."

That's some great sci-fi storytelling. Would you like me to quote Genesis as a refutation? This is the equivalent of what your argument is. Where is the proof that it happened like this? More importantly, where is the proof for the globe earth?

"At every moment after this protoplanetary disk state, gravity and coalescence made the earth very rocky and globular.
http://iopscience.iop.org...;

No evidence, no reason to doubt that the earth is flat.

"The Earth is currently about 4.5 billion years old, which is way too old to be in the beginning stages of planetary formation which negates that it is still flat.
The Earth is too mature to be a flat protoplanetary disk.
https://pubs.usgs.gov...;

Maybe my understand is unclear on my position. The heliocentric model is wrong. His offerings of appeals to authority do not prove anything. Basically, his argument is "but, but, muh science book". Proof. Evidence. I see none.

3. All other planets in the solar system formed similarly and are all spheroids.

My opponent is again assuming the heliocentric model. The stars are always above our head. The earth is always below our feet. What reason do I have to compare the stars to the earth? Is this the equivalent of saying that the billiard balls are all spherical, so then the table must be a spheroid? This is a logical fallacy of false comparison.

This is a video of a star that doesn't appear to be a flaming ball of gas, Brazilians of "light years away".
https://youtu.be...

"4. Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round."

Pro against makes a critical assumption here, the conclusiin, once again. It has been proved through the scientific method, that the earth is without curve or axial or orbital movement, so that it could never come between the sun and moon. Selenelions have been on record some 50+ times, where the sun and moon were both above the horizon so that the three of them could never be exactly aligned, even if we were to assume earth as a ball. Here's one on video record.

https://youtu.be...

This positively refutes the idea that a spheroid earth blocks the light from the sun on the moon.
MagicAintReal

Pro

*Correction*
In the definitions, the term "radius" was spelled "rdaius."
The definitions should read:
radius - a straight line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere.

*Rebuttal*

Con only accepts the "planet on which we live" portion of the definition for earth, in the definitions, and that's fine.
What's not fine, is Con's feeble attempt at refuting my case for a spheroid Earth.


I had mentioned that orbital velocity is a speed that is reached by objects that get caught in Earth's orbit given their size and radial distance from earth.

Con responds:
"I see no reason to believe it..."

My response:
Your argument from personal incredulity is as fallacious as it is unfounded.
Whether or not you can believe something has no bearing on whether or not it's true, and all of the functioning satellites orbiting around the earth are reasons you should see to believe the orbital velocity concept.


Con continues:
"you've not given a reason, and have good reason to say it is gibberish."

My response:
The equations for orbital velocity have been used to launch every single one of the 1,738 satellites currently orbiting the earth, listed at all confirmed satellite databases.
https://s3.amazonaws.com...

You can actually check every single satellite's live orbit around the earth at this awesome, free, sign-up-less, site below.
Let it load and search for the weather satellite "Aqua" or search one of the many "Navstar" satellites and you can watch them orbit earth.
http://stuffin.space...

Readers can check out the actual equations at the physics classroom link I provided first round and see that orbital velocity is necessarily successful on its radius property, which necessarily requires a spheroid/spherical center.


I had also provided a database of all satellites currently in Earth's orbit, which readers can cross check with the interactive, live view of those satellites moving in Earth's orbit.

Con responds:
"Another unevidenced assumption."

My response:
Which satellites mentioned in the database are errant, Con?
Why is it that I can cross-check any of the satellites mentioned in the database and locate their position in Earth's orbit, Con?
If there were no spheroid center, the radius of all of these satellites moving relative to Earth wouldn't be calculable.
The calculations for orbital velocity work, and I gave over 1,700 examples of it.


Con goes off the rails:
"GPS was used long before satellites were invented."

My response:
Yeah, and fire was used long before lighters were invented.
That doesn't change the existence of butane, metal or plastic and their ability to form a lighter to create fire.

GPSs use the distance between four or more satellites to calculate your device's location on Earth and this calculation ALSO involves the radius of the satellites from a central spheroid mass, the Earth.


Con blathers:
"obvious discrepancies lie with the claimed existence of satellites, like the temperature of the thermosphere..."

My response:
What's wrong with the temperature given the materials the satellites are made of?
Titanium, aluminum, cadmium, nickel, and the alloys there within perfectly allow for the increasing temperatures, when higher altitudes are reached in the thermosphere.


Con brain diarrheas:
"99% of the world's international data is transferred via undersea cables..."

My response:
Therefore no satellites?
Come on man.
All cell phone companies use satellites directly or indirectly for their broadband service, and the transfer of information after that point speaks not to whether or not there are satellites in Earth's orbit.


Con asserts:
"The earth hasn't moved an inch since it's conception."

My response:
I sourced a peer-reviewed Institute of Physics article on how the solar system formed given nuclide and long-lived U–Pb chronometry, meteorite evidence, the current volatile element inventory of the solar system, variable and intense x-ray
emission of protostars, and zirchon chronology.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

Con just didn't bother to read it.
Instead, Con asserts that the Earth hasn't moved without any sourcing at all.


Con just doesn't do much in the way of refuting, other than saying "No it's not."
So, I extend my other arguments.
Selenelions can go on record all day long, it doesn't negate orbital velocity, satellites, the earth's point in its formation, and actual lunar eclipses always showing circular shadows.

Bam!
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Con

"Con only accepts the "planet on which we live" portion of the definition for earth, in the definitions, and that's fine.
What's not fine, is Con's feeble attempt at refuting my case for a spheroid Earth."

I do not accept the earth definition of "planet". Please read my statement. To assume it is a planet, or a wandering star, is assuming the heliocentric model.


"I had mentioned that orbital velocity is a speed that is reached by objects that get caught in Earth's orbit given their size and radial distance from earth."

Yes, this is a wonderful idea, assuming we lived on a spinning ball, but mentioning something is not really proving so with the scientific method.

Con responds:
"I see no reason to believe it..."

My response:
"Your argument from personal incredulity is as fallacious as it is unfounded.
Whether or not you can believe something has no bearing on whether or not it's true, and all of the functioning satellites orbiting around the earth are reasons you should see to believe the orbital velocity concept."

I've given a more probable explanation for satellites, or GPS anyway. There may very well be satellites, but to assume they are all flying around a globe is an assertion, with no verifiable evidence. Balloons, (1) solar powered drones (2) are more probable than both "geostationary" and orbiting "satellites". Consider the undersea cables and towers, and anything satellites are claimed to do are perfectly alternatively explained.


"The equations for orbital velocity have been used to launch every single one of the 1,738 satellites currently orbiting the earth, listed at all confirmed satellite databases.
https://s3.amazonaws.com...;

I'm just trying to clarify here. Pro is attempting to prove that we live on a spinning spheroid by pointing to his calculator. I'm reminded of a Tesla quote:
"
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Pro, it may very well work on paper, this doesn't mean that it is reality. This requires evidence.

"You can actually check every single satellite's live orbit around the earth at this awesome, free, sign-up-less, site below.
Let it load and search for the weather satellite "Aqua" or search one of the many "Navstar" satellites and you can watch them orbit earth.
http://stuffin.space...;

And a computer simulation doesn't really cut it. I can go to an ISS tracking site and see exactly where the ISS is supposed to be at any time, until I change the time on my computer, then it bounces to where it should be at that time and date. I can even go outside and see something fly by in the sky, that doesn't mean it is what, where or how it is claimed to be, or that anyone is up there at all. Civilians aren't allowed to verify any of this information, so this is a form of appeal to authority. Unverifiable information as it were.

"Readers can check out the actual equations at the physics classroom link I provided first round and see that orbital velocity is necessarily successful on its radius property, which necessarily requires a spheroid/spherical center."

Equations. This is not scientific, this is mathematics, a tool of the scientific method.

"I had also provided a database of all satellites currently in Earth's orbit, which readers can cross check with the interactive, live view of those satellites moving in Earth's orbit."

Yes, we saw the computer simulation. Still waiting on evidence.

"Which satellites mentioned in the database are errant, Con?"

The ones said to be "orbiting" it, because the earth has been observed as flat and motionless.

"Why is it that I can cross-check any of the satellites mentioned in the database and locate their position in Earth's orbit, Con?"

How do you observe that specific satellite in that specific orbit, pro?

"If there were no spheroid center, the radius of all of these satellites moving relative to Earth wouldn't be calculable.
The calculations for orbital velocity work, and I gave over 1,700 examples of it."

You gave over 1,700 dots on a computer simulation, moving around a cartoon ball that didn't even look like earth. Where are all those "satellites" in the ISS feed? What about the supposed "pictures" of earth? Why are they absolutely devoid of ANY of the "Over 1,700" chunks of ir reflective(shiny) metal ranging from bus to football field size in any of the supposed pictures of earth from space?

My response:
"Yeah, and fire was used long before lighters were invented.
That doesn't change the existence of butane, metal or plastic and their ability to form a lighter to create fire."

I don't follow. Are you saying that people don't use fire anymore? I've given evidence that GPS is probably tower triangulation, with hundreds of millions being admittedly spent developing. I saw a "satellite" on the list from your list that was "launched" in 1978. 40 years of high speed motion with "Over 1,700" other chunks of highly sensitive material without any maintenance in temperatures of about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C(3,632° F) or higher.(3)

"GPSs use the distance between four or more satellites to calculate your device's location on Earth and this calculation ALSO involves the radius of the satellites from a central spheroid mass, the Earth."

Were back on assumptions and baseless claims again.


My response:
"What's wrong with the temperature given the materials the satellites are made of?
Titanium, aluminum, cadmium, nickel, and the alloys there within perfectly allow for the increasing temperatures, when higher altitudes are reached in the thermosphere."

These materials have a far lower melting point than 2,000 C°. Couple that with the excess heat from the vast array of electronics on board each of them, and the basic laws of thermodynamics, and you've got yourself one big fairy tale, I'd say. This makes satellites an impossibility. Look at all these sci-fi cartoons.

http://lmgtfy.com...

My response:
"Therefore no satellites?
Come on man."

If an alternative is even more plausible than the original, the burden has not been met, agreed? If cables carry 99%, and towers carried only 1%, what's left for satellites to carry? Do you even logic?

"All cell phone companies use satellites directly or indirectly for their broadband service, and the transfer of information after that point speaks not to whether or not there are satellites in Earth's orbit."

Wonderful, another unevidenced claim. Love it.

"I sourced a peer-reviewed Institute of Physics article ..."

Objective reality. Scientific method. Verifiability. This is what evidence should consist of. Not an appeal to authority. If there aren't countless experimental, scalable, verifiable and objective experiments that prove we are monkeys on a spinning ball, then we likely aren't.

"Instead, Con asserts that the Earth hasn't moved without any sourcing at all."

I use the scientific method to show that the earth isn't moving. Here's an experiment anyone can perform:

https://youtu.be...

"Con just doesn't do much in the way of refuting, other than saying "No it's not."
So, I extend my other arguments."

I mean, you can extend or drop it, whatever you'd like to call it, so that you don't have to address it?

Selenelions can go on record all day long, it doesn't negate orbital velocity, satellites, the earth's point in its formation, and actual lunar eclipses always showing circular shadows.

My opponent also assumes, because a circular shadow is cast upon the sun or moon, that the earth is the cause. He ignores the selenelions argument and attempts to claim they aren't "actual lunar eclipses" for obvious reason. It is irrefutable proof that the earth isn't necessarily a ball.

1. https://www.nasa.gov...
2. https://www.nasa.gov...
3. https://scied.ucar.edu...

MagicAintReal

Pro

Con only accepts that Earth is the place we all live.
It's still a spheroid, whether you call it a planet or not.
Con missed a lot in the debate, so I'll point it out.
I also have some surprises for Con.

*Final Rebuttals/Defenses*

I had four proofs.

#1 was that satellites orbit the earth via the correct orbital velocity, which was calculated, tested, and proven successful over and over again.
Orbital velocity has been demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions about where and how each and every satellite will travel, radially about a spheroid center, the earth.

#2 was the earth's too far along in its planetary development to be flat given the nuclide and long-lived U"Pb chronometry, meteorite evidence, the current volatile element inventory of the solar system, variable and intense x-ray
emission of protostars, and zirchon chronology all indicating that the earth formed via coalescence and gravity, necessarily rendering it spheroid.

#3 was that all of the other planets formed the way earth did, and the real, live telescope shots of each of the planets and their moons confirms spheroidal formation.

#4 was that when the earth gets in the way of the sun's rays traveling to the moon, the shadow is round, not flat.


*Con on #1*

Con tries:
"There may very well be satellites, but to assume they are all flying around a globe is an assertion, with no verifiable evidence...yes, we saw the computer simulation. Still waiting on evidence...How do you observe that specific satellite in that specific orbit, pro?"

My response:
Ok.
Now, I had debated with myself on whether or not to give out my membership for all readers to access, but I joined Slooh, a free telescope website that allows you to view particular observatories' telescope's views from around the world, and I was able to not only confirm the path of a particular satellite, I was able to see it in the actual live telescope shot, from Chile.

Remember that silly computer simulation Con tried to poo poo?
Well check this.
I decided to track the American satellite Navstar 55, launched with those calculations necessarily dependent on orbital velocity, which is necessarily dependent on the RADIUS between the central spheroid mass and the object orbiting about it.

So I found its path here:
http://stuffin.space...

While that site doesn't give latitude and longitude coordinates for seeing what's up in the sky, the next site does, and what you'll see is the position on that simulated globe from the link above is corroborated by the coordinates and map on the site below.

https://in-the-sky.org...

After I corroborated the evidence of the existence and path of this particular satellite, I looked at the live shot, on 1/18/18 9:34 PM ET, from the observatory in Chile and then I looked at the exact same shot from Chile at 9:40 PM and here are the *actual* shots.

These are live telescope shots, from my membership to Slooh, of the sky above Chile which is part of the path of Navstar 55, an American satellite.
https://www.slooh.com...

9:34 PM


9:40 PM


Notice the mid-upper-left side of the 2nd telescope shot has a satellite emerging from the exact place that the satellite trackers said it would.

BAM!
Orbital velocity works!

At about 9:30 PM, the site that Con claimed was just some computer simulation, accurately predicted that Navstar 55 would pass over the visible sky above the Chile observatory, from which I took TWO live, authentic images, corroborated with a different satellite tracker with coordinates.

Demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions.
That's how science works actually.


Now, I had mentioned that the materials on satellites, (aluminum, titanium alloys) can perfectly handle the temperature of the thermosphere.

Con attempts:
"These materials have a far lower melting point than 2,000 C". Couple that with the excess heat from the vast array of electronics on board each of them, and the basic laws of thermodynamics..."

My response:
Oh you wanna talk about thermodynamics?
Ok, well the thermosphere is far less dense than the atmosphere of the earth, very few particles concentrated, so though temperatures do rise quite high in the thermosphere, the heat TRANSFER is for crap, so the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.
The ISS and the satellites need not worry about burning up or melting, the thermosphere is not dense enough.


Oh, and I had mentioned that all cell phone companies use satellites directly or indirectly for their broadband service,

Con annoys:
"Wonderful, another unevidenced claim. Love it."

My response:

Verizon's Satellite Site
https://www.vzwsatellite.com...

AT&T's Satellite Site
https://www.corp.att.com...

Come on Con.
Also the moon is also a satellite that Con forgot about, but whatevs...we track it all of the time given orbital velocity about the spheroidal earth.


*Con on #2*

Con grumbles again:
"Another unevidenced claim with a link to some diagrams and cartoons presented as evidence, with more unevidenced claims...an appeal to authority. If there aren't countless experimental, scalable, verifiable and objective experiments."

My response:
This is Con's only response to how the earth formed given the source I provided on it and the evidence that supports it is ignored by Con.

For example, the uranium-lead chronometry indicates that the meteorites they found from different places in our solar system are about 4.5 billion years old, when they had predicted the solar system formed given the current volatile element inventory.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

Another example is measuring the x-ray emissions of protostars which indicate early irradiation within the solar system at the time the meteorites corroborate the beginnings of the solar system to be.

So you can decide if this evidence is just some appeal to authority or if it's an evidence-based explanation of how a globular earth formed like its planetary brethren of the solar system.


*Con on #3*

Remember I had sourced live telescope shots of the other planets in our solar system, and they were all round?
Yeah, Con never touched those.
They stand.

All of the planets and their moons in the solar system, including the earth and its natural satellite, are round and spheroid/spherical.


*Con on #4*

He just shows some video of a particular type of lunar eclipse perfectly explained by atmospheric refraction ON A SPHEROID EARTH.
http://iopscience.iop.org...


https://en.wikipedia.org...
Click the link if the image doesn't work.

Basically light gets refracted and distorts the positions and aparent sizes of objects given the velocity of the light traveling through air, so while it may appear that the sun and the moon do something strange during selenelion lunar eclipses, you can thank atmospheric refraction for their apparent paradoxical orientations.


*Conclusion*

Con's just not very good at refuting things, instead just resorts to saying "no evidence" or "doesn't cut it" or "I can't believe it" without any real delve into what he's talking about in particular.

Con made no attempt to try to understand any of the information provided to him, and instead, just resorted to stomping his feet.
It was annoying, but I'm confident that opt-in voters will notice the obvious idiocy inflicted on all of us by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Con

"Con only accepts that Earth is the place we all live.
It's still a spheroid, whether you call it a planet or not.
Con missed a lot in the debate, so I'll point it out.
I also have some surprises for Con."

Your problem is that you automatically assume that the earth is a spheroid, and the only proof you have is speculative assertions. The word planet means wandering stars, by adding the letter t to the end of plane, we were all fooled for over 500 years.

Pro goes over his arguments, gives my position on them, or at least cherry picks what he likes.

"Now, I had debated with myself on whether or not to give out my membership for all readers to access, but I joined Slooh, a free telescope website that allows you to view particular observatories' telescope's views from around the world, and I was able to not only confirm the path of a particular satellite, I was able to see it in the actual live telescope shot, from Chile."

It's sad that my opponent believes everything he see on his computer screen. His proof that we live on a spinning globe is that mathematics add up, they can be inputted into a computer, and they correlate with various software programs and GPS. The grand finale is another unverifiable image. Pro ignores that these satellites are so elusive that they aren't in any of the so called space footage from the ISS, this calls that footage into question, he also ignores that these brightly (presumably self) illuminated bus size objects aren't in any of the images or video from "space". He ignores the fact that a Google search brings up nothing but computer animated images of the satellite. It would be like posting this and wondering why someone wouldn't believe in the picture.

http://www.debate.org...

My opponent doesn't seem to understand the scientific method. Images on a computer that can't be empirically validated through objective reality and this leaves substantial doubt. If it is 9:30, as the images state, what is illuminating the satellite? Shouldn't it be fully eclipsed by the earth's shadow by 9:30?

"Oh you wanna talk about thermodynamics?
Ok, well the thermosphere is far less dense than the atmosphere of the earth, very few particles concentrated, so though temperatures do rise quite high in the thermosphere, the heat TRANSFER is for crap, so the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. The ISS and the satellites need not worry about burning up or melting, the thermosphere is not dense enough."

Good try, but the source of heat in space, or anywhere for that matter isn't a few particles that may come into contact with the satellite. Common sense tells us the source of heat is the sun. You know, the (supposedly) big ball of flaming helium that your planet is supposedly flying around? The same source of heat that heats up those "very few particles concentrated" would heat up the very large hunk of particles in the same area, you think? Also, due to those very few particles of whatever, the heat wouldn't radiate away from the 2,000° blob of glowing hot metal, as this is how radiators work, and is an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Since even they are the same temperature as the "satellite" there would be no way to cool the satellite, which also has added heat from added various indesctructable electronics onboard. So the satellite, that can't steer itself, can't cool itself, can't repair itself, can't be seen (other than through computer simulations, and a grainy screen shot on someone else's telescope) and, as my opponent ignores, has more probable explanations, should not be taken as scientific evidence that we are all monkeys on a spinning ball.

My opponent then links to some satphones as a last ditch effort to save this sci-fi fantasy, sneakily posing as reality.

http://lakdiva.org...



"For example, the uranium-lead chronometry indicates that the meteorites they found from different places in our solar system are about 4.5 billion years old, when they had predicted the solar system formed given the current volatile element inventory.
http://iopscience.iop.org...;

Aside from this being a straw man, I have to ask my opponent, how does he know that this data is true? How do you know the information isn't being misinterpreted or presented under false pretense. I realize that pro has put great FAITH in the words of these men. But the information isn't infallible any more than if I were to quote Bible verses as proof of something. We aren't in a creation(God created everything) versus big bangism (nothing created everything) debate here. We can objectively measure the earth and it's waters PRESENTLY, there is no need to ask someone's opinion on how old rocks are etc. to try and prove a point. This is an appeal to authority/ strawman fallacy.


"Remember I had sourced live telescope shots of the other planets in our solar system, and they were all round?
Yeah, Con never touched those.
They stand."

Maybe pro ignored the refutation, and cherry picked the last round. I have given a logical reason that we shouldn't compare lights in the sky to the ground beneath our feet. This is a false analogy fallacy. I'm reminded of a George Orwell quote.

"Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either."

My opponent can assume whatever he likes. It is up to the voter to decide if this "evidence" stands.


On eclipses, he Is shown many eclipses are on record that contradict the heliocentric explanation. He responds:


"He just shows some video of a particular type of lunar eclipse perfectly explained by atmospheric refraction ON A SPHEROID EARTH."

So, without practical and testable (scientific) evidence to support the claim, "atmospheric refraction" has, according to his drawing, caused the light from both the sun and moon to be bent in opposite directions, AND has caused the shadow to come from and follow the opposite direction as well, So even That The earth Is Clearly Below Both The Sun And The Moon, The Shadow Is Coming From Above. I Hear "Optical Illusion" And "Atmospheric Refraction" To Try To Excuse This Very Blatant Error In The Heliocentric Model. This Is Conjecture. Not How The Scientific Method Works. You Don't Change The Facts If They Don't Support The Theory.


In conclusion.

My opponent seems to have forgotten altogether what the scientific method is. Objective, testable, repeatable, scalable, practical, experimental.. these are the scientific method. If we lived on a spinning ball, there would be numerous experiments we could perform to confirm this. Since the only "evidence" my opponent has to believe this is highly speculative and assumes nearly everything including the conclusion. His circular logic is blatantly apparent in all of his evidence. The earth supposedly produces a round shadow on the moon (because it is a spherical planet). Satellites "orbit" the earth (because it is a spherical planet). From this "evidence", I've no reason to believe that the earth is anything but a motionless, possibly infinite plane, as my research, experimentation, and common senses tell me.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Extend.
Thanks for the debate, Con.
Debate Round No. 4
109 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 4 months ago
Youngastronomer
It is unusual that this gentleman is 40. I guess belief in flat earth has those symptoms. A 40 year old with meme photographs, dodgy grammar and a lot of insults.
Posted by Ramshutu 4 months ago
Ramshutu
Please learn what the word assertion means.
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Show me a radio telescope or regular telescope shot taken from a beach on the east coast of the United States at night with no moonlight that clearly shows the coast of Portugal.

I'll be thoroughly convinced if you actually pull this off.
Posted by Edlvsjd 4 months ago
Edlvsjd
except I gave an observation that shows the earth is flat. A few of them. You? ASSertion
Posted by Ramshutu 4 months ago
Ramshutu
Heh. The "I"m rubber your glue defence", quality adult argument!

Care to have a debate on the matter, edl, rather than simply have you angrily rant about how unfair it is that you keep losing debates?
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Dude, move on.
Posted by Edlvsjd 4 months ago
Edlvsjd
One day you'll realize that you"re entire argument is coming up with convoluted, unprovable reasons why observations appear to show the earth is flat.
Posted by Ramshutu 4 months ago
Ramshutu
One day you'll realize that you"re entire argument is coming up with convoluted, unprovable reasons why observations appear to show the earth is a sphere.
Posted by Edlvsjd 4 months ago
Edlvsjd
fing geniuses
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
EdlvsjdMagicAintReal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 6 months ago
Ramshutu
EdlvsjdMagicAintReal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in post 4 of this thread: http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/109216/1#2936922 Addendum in comment 49 of this debate.