The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The earth is a spinning globe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 90453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

The earth is not round, there is no evidence of this that can't be disproved. Any media publicly available is presentable until such evidence is proved to be falsified. No kritiks. No ad hominem. Please keep advanced theoretical mathematical equations to a minimum. Burden of proof lies entirely on pro. Thanks for the interest in this fascinating subject, I hope my opponent can give me that 100% empirical or logical piece of evidence. Before accepting this debate, please watch this short video debunking most of the common proofs of a spinning globe, and either find another proof, or debunk that debunk you choose to use. Good luck, and I hope both of us learn something with this challenge!


Thanks for providing a video though it does not prove or disprove anything, I believe this is a serious debate even though I think I can easily convince you that the Earth is spherical in shape and spinning.

Earth is spherical

"the basic idea of Earth being a spherically stratified planet are well founded" [1]. Seismic wave observations have been used to investigate the interior structure of the planet. S-waves can't travel through liquid such as the mantle resulting in a seismic shadow. Seismographs allow scientists to calculate the position of major boundaries in the Earth's interior [2].

"Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth." [3]

Earth is spinning

My questions to Con is this; if the Earth doesn't spin, does the moon orbit the Earth? Or is the moon stationary like the Earth? The moon clearly can't be stationary because the moon can appear 14% larger - called a super moon due to an elliptical orbit. So does the moon orbit a stationary Earth then? The moon is tidally locked with Earth, that is to say it shows the same side to Earth, so if the moon orbits a stationary Earth why is it that we cannot see the other side of the moon while standing on Earth?


Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this challenge, and thanks in advance for our voters. The proofs offered are great examples, but seismic waves are far from empirical evidence.
Aristotle was one of the greatest geniuses of ancient Greece. He was the tutor of Alexander the Great and a prolific writer. He believed in a spherical and IMMOVABLE earth. Before Galileo, people who believed in an earth centered universe were called Aristotelians. Aristotle may have been a genius when it came to philosophy - especially logic - but he didnt know squat about science. Sure, we cant excel in every field we try our hand in, but Aristotles massive errors arent just a personal embarrassment to him - they directly hampered scientific progress for close to 2,000 years because most of what he claimed in the scientific world was assumed as fact from day one. His views included the heart as the center of thought and emotion, plants were not separate in sexes, which remained "fact" until 1700 when botanists stated the obvious, he was wrong about inertia, and when Democritus proposed the universe was made of many tiny particles called atoms, Aristotle said the idea was ridiculous, and continued to teach that everything was made of small amounts of each of the four elements. I wonder how far science would have progressed if Aristotle had stuck to philosophy...
1) seismic waves
Please explain how this relates to the shape of the earth in detail. Are the results 100% correct or reliable considering we've not even broke through the crust? How do the scientist know when these waves are slowed, distorted, even reflected from an inner layer? In not an expert in this field, and if in correct in my assumptions the science would probably assume the the earth is a globe when taking measurements.
2) Lunar eclipses
While it is reasonable to say that lunar eclipses show a round shadow on the moon, this theory can be shown in a number of ways to be flawed.
A) Selenelions have been recorded for centuries. These occurrences happen when a person or persons are close enough to both the sun and moon, allowing the person to see both celestial bodies above the horizon. This would be impossible if the earth were directly between the two, as to cause a perfect alignment over the combined distance of almost 94 million miles. However, on a flat earth, with both bodies being equal distances away from the viewer, both inside the point of convergence, that is, in front of the vanishing point, this part of the phenomenon makes sense.
B) Blood moons are also a proof against the earth causing a shadow on the moon. Nowhere in the history of science has a shadow been red and bright, as the blood moon clearly does. The earth from space shows a mostly blue planet with a blue aura, we can logically deduce (due to several factors mentioned in comination) that the earth does not block the earth's light on the moon.
C) Lunar eclipses prove that the moon "orbits" the earth in about 24 hours!! Lunar eclipses can only occur at the time of the full moon and the fast moving moon can clear the earth's shadow in about 7 hours. A typical total lunar eclipse lasts about 1 hour and the moon clears the penumbra or shadow of the earth in about 7 hours. That means that the moon has moved about 1/4 way around the earth in about 7 hours. A typical total lunar eclipse lasts about 1 hour and the moon clears the penumbra or shadow of the earth in about 7 hours. Lunar eclipses occurs when the moon passes through the shadow of the earth. When the moon is within the umbra (or darkest) part of the earth's shadow, it is illuminated only by the light refracted through the earth's atmosphere. This light is usually orange or brick-red. Totality, the length of time the moon is totally within the umbra, may last as long as 1 hour and 40 minutes. Before the moon moves into the umbra, it passes through an area of partial illumination, called the penumbra. In the penumbra, the moon appears nearly the same as when it's in the full light of the sun. The passage of the moon through the penumbra takes about 7 hours.
The heliocentric theory has a monthly orbit of the moon only!! The heliocentric theory ignores the DAILY orbit of the moon and allows for a monthly orbit only!! On closer examination, this proves to be a deadly counterfeit system because it cannot account for the movement of the moon during an eclipse. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The Moon rotates about its own axis in 27.322 days, which is also the time that it takes to complete ONE orbit around the Earth. As a result, the Moon always presents nearly the same face to the Earth. Whereas the actual rate of rotation is uniform, the distance through which the Moon moves in its orbit from day to day varies somewhat. Accordingly, the face that the Moon turns to Earth is subject to a corresponding cyclical variation, the lunar globe oscillating slightly (as seen over time by a terrestrial observer) with a period nearly equal to that of revolution. The amount of this apparent oscillation, which is called libration, is commonly between 6 and 7 degrees." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 299). The heliocentric theory IGNORES the moon's daily orbit and cannot account for the rapid movement of the moon during a lunar eclipse. The heliocentric system has the moon moving very, very slowly around the earth. One month is required to complete its orbit. This ignoring of the moon's daily orbit is done in order to get the earth rotating. The heliocentric theory IGNORES the moon's daily orbit and cannot account for the rapid movement of the moon during a lunar eclipse. The moon is supposed to move at a speed of about 2,000 mph (3,219 km) or about 13" per day to an observer on earth.
D) Predictability
The current method used to predict these occurrences is based on the ancient world's method of cycles instead of one based on celestial mechanics.
Using these basic observations, we can assume that more research needs to be done (or brought to light) as to why the lunar eclipse happens. The ancients blame an entity called Rahu, and it's not The first time we've heard about "invisible celestial bodies"

The moon obviously moves, we see it move across the sky most every night. It is your model that pretends it hardly moves, and in the opposite direction to boot! The moon orbits the center of the universe, just like the sun and stars. The center being magnetic. It goes far enough away from us to be past the vanishing point. The moon appears the same, (aside from size, color and the direction you view it from, (depending on which hemisplane you are in) which means it can't be a sphere, surely, some would see more of it than those in the other hemisphere, and vice versa just as any two who were looking at a ball from different angles at a distance. The moon, in this way, represents a disc for many reasons. Possibly even a reflection on or under liquid. Which could possibly explain the many lunar waves recorded, and the strange appearance of stars recorded with the Nikon p900.


The moon and sun change positions in the sky, if the Earth was like a big flat pancake you'd expect to see a shadow in the shape of a line varying in thickness each night, or at least once, to see a shadow in the shape of a circle would be rare on a flat Earth. The pancake would have to face the sun and not rotate in order to see a circular shadow across the moon. How do you explain the lunar cycles?

Earth rotates, proof can be seen from the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
Debate Round No. 2


Lunar cycles have nothing to do with the earth's shape whatsoever in either the heliocentric model or the geocentric flat earth model. Heliocentricity says it's the position of the sun in respect to the moons position, however the lunar phases sometimes do not match up with the sun's position. The flat earth community explains that the moon is self luminent, perhaps borrowing some energy from the sun. Both are near, and both circuit above our heads, only moving past the vanishing point when it "sets". Perspective plays a huge part in the sun and moon's activity near the horizon. This video explains it best.
The earth's movement has never been detected.


Okay, the lunar cycles do not directly prove whether the Earth is a sphere or a disk, a diagram from the below website explains the phases very well. It explains that half of the moon is always illuminated by the sun, we only see one face of the moon, but because the day time illuminated parts moves around we see lunar phases.

I also understand now that during a lunar eclipse the sun, moon and Earth are aligned so when the moon passes Earth's shadow the shadow shape seen is the same whether or not Earth is a disk or a sphere.

However, if the Earth were flat then a bigger shadow would be cast during an eclipse since all the surface area of the globe would be laid flat. Of course the shadow from the Earth can appear the same size whether Earth is flat or not, but if the Earth is flat then the Moon would have to be about twice as far away. Ever since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a mirror on the lunar surface scientists have been firing lasers at it for 40 years [1], which prove the moon is around 370,000 km (240,000 miles) - a figure you'd expect if Earth is a sphere. This doesn't prove people went to the moon by the way. The ancient Greeks determined the approximate distance of the moon from the Earth at 397,500 km (247,000 miles) which is pretty close.

Anyway I have to provide evidence that will convince you, Earth's movement has been detected, you can watch the Earth's rotation by watching the Foucault Pendulum. Here is a video:

Even if the Earth were flat it must still be spinning, as it is the Coriolis effect that causes the motion.

All I have to do now is prove the Earth is a globe which I'll do now by asking you to look at a similar video below.

If you can see an ocean and only the tops of buildings in the distance the Earth must be round. If you look into a telescope at the same view the bottom of the buildings will still be blocked by the ocean. There is video proof of this, which I've given. On a flat Earth, where the ocean is flat, there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to see the bottom of buildings by looking through a telescope. Since you can't see the bottom of those buildings, just the tops due to the curvature of Earth, the Earth is a sphere.


Debate Round No. 3


I know how the heliocentric model lunar phases are suppose to work, I was indoctrinated too. It doesn't seem too fantastical for the sun too be exactly 400x bigger, yet 400x further away?

Lunar eclipses are one of the stronger points for a spherical earth, but a selenelion lunar eclipse would be impossible on a ball. These occurrences have been recorded for centuries and happens when you are close enough to both the sun and moon on a flat earth. Both celestial bodies are above the horizon during a selenelion, making it impossible for the earth to be directly between the two, and more investigation is needed into the root cause of a lunar eclipse. I lean toward Rahu, but there is no empirical evidence exactly what it is. The heliocentric model doesn't give adequate excuse, calling for "refraction" to save the day. This at first seems a reasonable excuse for this happenning on a globe, but honestly, it just seems like more lies, how can refraction cause both the sun and moons appearance to be bent in opposite directions, AND causing the shadow to come in from the wrong angles...? If you look at the math for a globe earth, the sun is 4,000 miles below your feet during setting! Watch this video closely, and think, is the earth in between the sun and moon, or are they both at equal distances from the viewer, and close to the flat earth with an object somewhere overhead, or passing in front of the moon possibly close to it.


Impossible selenelion

They've been bouncing crap off the moon for long before the supposed moon landings, read about "operation moon bounce" in the 50's. This is just another he said proof, if I knew a few people that weren't government sponsored, that had this super powerful laser beam and all the necessary computers it took to measure this beam, this might be a little more believable, but since I can't go down to lasers r us and buy/rent this equipment, it can hardly be considered empirical evidence, and is therefore only as good as man's word. If they put a big reflector on the moon 60 years ago,it would be covered in a mountain of dust. Alternatively, I've stated that space could be a dense liquid, which would also reflect lasers.

Science hinting at a liquid space

Moon is very dusty

Errortosthanes "measured" the earth with two sticks, but The same exact results would be produced on a flat earth with a close sun. Again with the Greek philosophers, he also believed that since he saw (african) elephants in the west and (indian) elephants in the east, that he had circumnavigated the globe. Can't forget the knee-jerk response of ships going over the curvature, but if they had binoculars or telescopes then, this would have been ruled out long ago, or the invention would have been considered a magical device, being able to drag ships backwards over the curvature of the earth.

Eratosthenes was wrong

Ships "disappearing" over the curvature

The Foucault pendulum is a parlor trick, it can be achieved with magnets. Even if it weren't magnets, how do we know the earth spins under a swinging ball? It doesn't move under hot air balloons, cannonballs, planes, etc. Felix Baumgartner, when skydiving from the stratosphere, landed in the opposite direction than he would have if the earth were spinning under him. Hot air balloons can't just float up and wait for their destination to come to them. Planes don't have to compensate for a 1,000mph moving runway, why should a swinging ball be disattached from the velcroed atmosphere? How do we know that it isn't the electromagnetism of the close, circuiting sun and moon that causes the ball to rotate? The allias effect disproved Any association the Foucault pendulum has with the rotation of the earth, along with Airys Failure, and the sagnac experiment, science cannot explain it, unless they can account for the theories I have brought forth, but they won't. They have mouths to feed.

The Earth does not spin

Same concept with the coriolis effect, the bullet travels a second or two, a few feet off the ground, and the earth supposedly moves under it, so it takes a split second for the earth to move under a bullet, and several minutes to move under Foucault... why not balloons, which fly hundreds of feet high, for hours, and can easily land in the same spot with no problems. And the coriolis effect does not cause the earths motion. The gyroscope should be useless in a spinning ball, because they stay at the same axis they started, in relation to space, even when sprinkled with magic gravity dust. Planes use these devices to stay level to the ground, but if they flew thousands of miles over a ball, the gyroscope would not produce the same false horizon from which it started, making it completely useless in a plane.

Gyroscopes prove flat, motionless earth

The last video is interesting, but then I've seen several videos and images where no curvature is present over much longer distances. This "curvature" can be explained as swells or drifts.
This photo of the Chicago skyline from Michigan should not be possible. At this distance, only the tips of the 2 highest buildings would be visible, but you can see all of every building in the city. Before you take The bozo weatherman's excuse for this picture, where special circumstances must be present for this to happen, take a look at this time lapse video, from the same location. These videos are everywhere, and if the earth started to drop off at this distance, rising up from this ball would only cause the horizon to fall, and building you coul d see at long distances would be leaning away from you, but it doesn't. Even at 100,000 ft, the horizon stays flat and at eye-level. Note how two cameras are mounted, one fisheye cam and a standard lens.

Chicago skyline picture.

Time lapse

Dog cam


It is pure coincidence that the Sun and moon appear the same size viewed from Earth. The Sun is ~93 million miles away but large enough to appear the same size as the moon. Size and distance away are related, e.g. an object could appear the same size as the moon if it were twice as big but twice as far away, that is how perspective works!

None of the people who claim the Earth is flat and stationary are experts.

"The age of the Earth is 4.54 " 0.05 billion years (4.54 " 109 years " 1%).This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." " The moon's mass is 7.35 x 1022 kg, about 1.2 percent of Earth's mass. Put another way, Earth weighs 81 times more than the moon." wikipedia

"from satellite observations we know that the Sun loses about 1.5 million tonnes of material each second due to solar wind." [1]. So, the only way the sun can still be around is because the sun is massive, also to appear the size as the moon it must be very far away (and massive).

Why does Earth have polar caps like Mars does? Why can't we have ice caps at the poles? Why would there be an ice sheet at the edge of a flat Earth? You can see the polar caps on Mars through a telescope you can buy [2]. Due to the CURVATURE of the planet, the poles receive less energy from the sun per square metre.

"From the equator to the poles, the Sun" rays meet Earth at smaller and smaller angles, and the light gets spread over larger and larger surface areas" [3]. This is because the Earth is a sphere and the equator receives full-intensity solar radiation.

There is daylight for the entire summer at the north pole [4]. Watch this video proof:

The sun doesn't set below the horizon during summer here because the Earth is not flat, you are seeing the sun at a different angle due to being on a curved surface. It is the only explanation especially when you consider the sun is so far away.

A rotating body tends to form an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere. And gravity tends to contract a celestial body into a sphere. The Earth is not a perfect sphere, it is flatter at the poles and bulges at the equator. This is probably why some people can take pictures of the ocean which appear very flat while other pictures show the curvature of Earth more clearly but only when looking at a large distance of course. Boats that go further out to sea don't just get smaller until they vanish, they appear to sink.

The reason hot air balloons can't float up and land somewhere else when they come down on a spinning Earth is because objects including planes, clouds etc, are spinning around by gravity like the moon which is further away but keep up with Earths rotation.


Debate Round No. 4


At this time, I would like to point out the obvious to our voters, that is my opponent obviously previously had little to no knowledge of the subject, other than what we vaguely paid attention to in grammar school. Pro has dropped all of his original arguments, even being corrected about the heliocentric model he defends.

So this coincidence doesn't seem too fantastical, what about the astronomical odds of both celestial bodies following near identical paths across the sky, so that they cross paths so often in predictable patterns to boot? Oh the gullibility...

"None of the people who claim the earth is flat are experts"
How much research went into that statement? Do you have a source?

Insert irrelevant wiki post here-

Not sure what mars has to do with the shape of the ground we're standing on, but let's examine it anyway. The Nikon p900 boasts one of the strongest zooms of any camera on the market. This little bad boy is an extraordinary tool for the flat earther, mostly because we can zoom in to places that should be well below the supposed curvature of the earth, but looking at the sun, moon and stars brings astonishing findings. Here is Mars through the P900
Here are some stars
Here is what I compare this footage to.
No curvature
The "polar caps" are just places the sun is not close enough to to melt it. The sun is close, and small. The sun circles above our heads, gaining and losing altitude through the solstices, melting a path around what we call the equator. In the helio model, the north pole is tilted away from the sun in winter, towards it in summer, when it thaws out. Antarctica never thaws. It is the coldest place on earth. Why is this so? Why can't Antarctica have a thawed summer?
"This is because the Earth is a sphere and the equator receives full-intensity solar radiation."
The earth is on a tilt remember, which means the equator wouldn't receive the sun's direct radiation. Just one of a number of things wrong with the heliocentric model. This is also the reason we get long days in the north according to the heliocentric model. Since the earth circles the sun in your model, we should get the same in the south pole in this model, but we don't, and we can't verify it, because no one is allowed. A flat earth, with the north pole at the central of all rotational bodies, would produce the same exact scenario at the north pole, but not at the south.
I have never seen a picture of any curvature. Since you provide none, I will assume this statement is false. boats also do not go over any curvature, boats just go far enough away to go past the vanishing point, while being obscured by the sea water directly above the surface in the form of gas. This has been analyzed by neutral parties and confirmed. I have stressed this in a previous round, but here it is again.
If hot air balloons are going around with the magically velcroed atmosphere, then bullets and weather patterns should also have to move with it.
I know this is a tough pull to swallow, because of the implications, but the sooner it is swallowed, the sooner humans can find out our true purpose. This does, in effect, prove God's, and Satan's existence.


If you watch the below video from round 4

you will see that from the north pole you can see the sun rising and falling but not falling below the horizon for the entire summer. In the winter the sun can't be seen at all.The only way that is possible is if the earth is spinning. When the sun sets it doesn't get smaller and smaller to a vanishing point, it goes behind the Earth itself due to it being curved i.e. spherical. There are periods of 24 hours of daylight in the south pole too, but obviously not at the same time.

The below video explains why the northern hemisphere is hotter
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
I offer facts and logic that anyone can use and understand, and you offer ad hominem and Nuh-uhss.
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
I came from no such place can the Nuh-uh man.
Posted by DanneJeRusse 1 year ago
Yes Kenny, this guy is a complete idiot and a troll, which can easily be observed by the monstrously stupid videos he submits. He came from the Flat Earth website where other incredibly stupid people hang out and toss feces at "Rounders". None of them have a shred of evidence to support their nonsense and are completely incapable of answering questions. On the flip side, many of the "Rounders" there are quite knowledgeable and well educated, putting to shame the feces tossers.
Posted by kennykenkenken 1 year ago
That guy is an idiot. Is this a troll?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Looking at this guy's debates... I can tell you like the idea of Earth being flat.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
I would like to accept this debate. I believe I can provide evidence of Earth being a) rotating (or spinning, if you prefer) and b) spherical in shape.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
Thank you DebateEvolved, you linked me to a scientific fact which proves I was right,

I need to post this in my old debate.

Light = energy.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
#1 @ debatesEvolved

he nor you never proved space-time curvature.
especially from the perspectives of skeptics, no evidence was even remotely alluded to.
gullible? delusional? gossip? irrational? poor logic?

Gravity? HA
No votes have been placed for this debate.