The Instigator
Elysian
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The earth is not a sphere.

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 4 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,566 times Debate No: 21676
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Elysian

Pro

First round is acceptance
My stand is earth isn't a sphere and my opponent is to argue that it is
BOP lies with me

Definition:
-Sphere: geometrical round object in three-dimensional space
-Earth: The planet on which we live, the third planet from the sun in the solar system.
larztheloser

Con

ACCEPTED.

Please note: just because something is "geometrically round" doesn't mean it is a perfect circle. An oval is "round". Most dictionaries define "round" as meaning "Shaped like or approximately like a circle". I'm putting this here just in case my opponent tries to run a semantic case that the Earth has slight deformations and thus isn't perfectly round - don't even bother. I will agree right here and now that the Earth is not perfectly round, but is nonetheless geometrically round.

Since this is an acceptance round, I will state my case in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
Elysian

Pro

Hello larztheloser,
Thanks for accepting this although I made it as a joke. Nonetheless, I am glad you spotted the first trap in the argument (and feeling pretty smug about it too). Well, being a good sport, I will continue the debate

1.0 The earth exist in a multi-dimensional frame
1.1 This is the main crux of my argument. Notice I did not specify that I would be viewing earth as a three-dimensional being; Indeed, I will approach it by considering a 4 dimensional being looking at earth. Most naturally, I would not see the earth as a sphere. In fact, adding the dimension of time, it is fully possible to visualize it as an ever-growing tube (Andrew J.H. et al)

References
Andrew J.H. et al. Meshview: Visualizing the Fourth Dimension Computer Science Department Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
larztheloser

Con

Thanks for being a good sport!

My Case
It seems we have an agreement over one thing - that the world is a sphere in three spatial dimensions. Pro has to prove that the Earth is not (and I quote from his definition) a "geometrical round object in three-dimensional space." He has conceded all of this, and therefore conceded the debate. This is disappointing - I was hoping for a serious debate on whether the Earth is flat and held up by a flying spaghetti monster (if anybody else wants to challenge me on this topic, feel free).

Rebuttal
When viewed from another spatial dimensionality, and object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round, in the same way that a sphere is as round as a circle. Human beings exist in four-dimensional space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org...), meaning time is a part of our everyday reality. While I suppose you could imagine that the Earth is tube-shaped like my opponent suggests, the fact is that when you return to reality, you find that the Earth is a sphere, and that the Earth is therefore round. Besides this, the whole argument has nothing to do with the resolution, which is not about how the Earth appears, but what the Earth is.

I look forward to our last round.
Debate Round No. 2
Elysian

Pro

Hello larztheloser,
Sorry for not being a member of the Flat Earth Society (still awaiting formal approval from the high priest).

2.0 Rebutting larz's case

2.1 Earlier, we defined the sphere to be in 3-dimensional. My opponent concede that it may appear to be tube-shape in 4-diension. My position is to show that the earth is not a sphere (nowhere has I added the additional perimeter that it needs to be in 3-dimentional space) . Thus I believe I haven't cross the boundary of conceded the debate.

3.0 Defending my case

3.1 My opponent points out that object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round. This is only true in a special case; the object must remain stationary. Since earth is not stationary, it is prudent to take my interpretation of a tube-shaped structure.

3.2 The second charge was that I was considering how earth "appears" to be and not how it "is". For that, I would like to point out to a 4-dimentional being, earth "is" a tube-shape as much it "is" a circle to a 2 dimensional being and a sphere to a 3-dimensional one.

Again, thanks for being a formidable opponent and my apologies for embedding traps into this debate. Best of luck for the vote.
larztheloser

Con

Start your own rival Flat Earth Society!

My Case

Earth is a 3D shape. In 3D, both of us agree that the Earth is a sphere. You think it looks different in 4D, but that does nothing to contest what the shape actually is, only how it appears. There's often a big gap between appearance and reality, especially as other dimensions come into play. My opponent has done nothing to argue the Earth is not a sphere, only that the Earth doesn't look like a sphere. As I will go on to show, he has done so by misrepresenting his sole source. And he has deliberately based all of his irrelevant arguments on not evidence, but a confusion of the word "dimension" with the phrase "alternate reality." A sphere is still a sphere in 20 dimensions, just as it is in 4000 dimensions - it just looks different. That doesn't mean it is any less round - it really hasn't changed a bit, not transformed into a cylinder or anything else - and thus its shape must be equally round!

Rebuttal

"My opponent points out that object which is geometrically round in three-dimensional space will still appear to be round. This is only true in a special case; the object must remain stationary."
I don't know where my opponent got this from. If a 2-dimensional circle was floating past you, you would see that it is still round. Cut a piece of paper into a circle and move it around a bit for proof of this - the circle will remain just as round as when you cut it.
I suspect my opponent is trying to map time on to a spatial dimension, as the authors of the paper he cites did, because otherwise this point is pure nonsense. The point is that we live in 4 dimensions, and we don't see the 3-dimensional Earth as a cylinder.

"I would like to point out to a 4-dimentional being, earth "is" a tube-shape as much it "is" a circle to a 2 dimensional being"
And I would like to point out that to a 4-dimensional being, a tube "is" round, just as for a 2-dimensional being, a circle "is" round. And by the way, a sphere in four spatial dimensions is not a tube. The paper you cited proposed if time was represented on a spatial axis, how a sphere might look. We live in four dimensions, and yet spherical objects are not tubes, as I explained last round, no matter how hard we imagine them to be otherwise. The authors of the paper were making an academic argument, not explaining how spatial dimensions actually operate. Basically, my opponent is giving you all a false impression as to what his paper was for.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
mhmm... okie, someone please give larz conduct point too for going beyond the debate
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I'm pretty sure I get your point that it's possible for the Earth to be a 4d shape that appears like a sphere in 3d. I'm also pretty sure that, since the universe is 3d, the Earth is not a 4d shape. Just as a circle is a circle in 99 dimensions, so is a sphere a sphere in 4 dimensions.
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
Thanks for being so patience with me, and sorry for the multiple post, but i really want to understand this.
When you say "appears" wouldn't the reversed also be true; what we perceived isn't what it is but what it appears to be. since we are 3D beings, our actions are limited to 3D plane. (the figure in the 2D plane could only interact in 2D when we pass a 3D object through it. likewise, a 4D object passing through our 3D plane could be interact in 3D)
the circle in all dimension is another concept i fail to grasp, consider the 2D paper ver as, a cone when passing through tip first would only appear as a circle, likewise, a sphere passing through it also appears as a circle. hence, it is impossible for a 2D figure to distinguish these two. consider now the 2D is our 3D plane, what we see as a sphere might not be a sphere in the 4D indeed could not be since it does not grows or shrinks in size.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
My point is that the Earth is still shaped like a circle in all dimensions. It merely appears different.
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
Just a clarification, our eyes do not have the capacity to see in 3D, thus a 4D sphere would appear as a sphere growing in size before shrinking again as it passes through our 3D plane. A 4D cube (hypercube) doesn't appear as a cube. wiki has a good illustration on how this works http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
Wait what? we are 4D objects?
what i thought was that we are 3D, sees in 2D, living in a 4D world. Going back to the paper analogy, the figure on the paper is 2D, living in 3D and sees in 1D (ie, sees lines of varying length and shades). http://tribes.tribe.net...
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
We are four dimensional beings. We do see the same as we do. Your argument sounds extremely strange now.

The Earth is a 3D object. In 4D space it is not a weird 4D cylinder - it is an object missing one of its dimensions. If we view it in 4D, we see it in 3D, just like we see 2D in 3D as 2D, if that makes any sense.

I think my running of an "even if the Earth were 4D" argument probably confused you (:
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
guys please read flatland-a romance in many dimension
since the votes are in, please convince me why I am wrong
first, we are 3 dimensional being, we see in 2 dimension, waving a orb around would not change the way we see it. If a 4 dimensional being who see the world in 3 dimension, it would not see it as the same as we do. The best example i could give is for you to consider a 2D figure on a paper, if we were to throw a cylinder through it, what it would be for it is a circle. in the 2D world the circle would be as real as a square in the same 2D world, yet we in the 3D world would see it as a cylinder.

p.s. i did not chose to fight for an elliptical world as the diff in radius is only .33% which means it is rounder than a marble, and i do not want to fight with semantics
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
sources RFD:

She had more accurate sources. Wikipedia is good, but she had a better source.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
... and i will just say look carefully at my response.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 5 years ago
Mimshot
ElysianlarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire argument revolves around a work describing how time can be visualized using a fourth dimension, which it appears he didn't understand.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
ElysianlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defines sphere as round object IN 3d space. Any arguments about 4d space were irrelevant, by Pro's own definitions. Con clearly wins this.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
ElysianlarztheloserTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro had better sources, but the Con had better arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ElysianlarztheloserTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case is based fully off of a 4 dimensional argument. Con refuted this as even in 4 demolitions it will still stay round/appear round, this refutation crippled pros case. Also he proved we are in a 3rd dimensional universe, and in our universe it is a sphere (I hold that it is an ellipse in my mind)