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

The earth is spherical and spinning

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 95491
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)




My opponent accuses me of "dropping several points" he claims to make in favor of a spherical earth. I cause him of the same. Since the forums are an informal format for debate, I've chosen to make this formal, so that each argument is discussed and more or less settled in a formal way. My opponent also uses plenty of insults in his argument, so this way we can try to eliminate some of this. I would love to go back to believing the earth is a ball again, and put this behind me. He seems pretty serious in proving the earth is a ball, but all he wants to discuss is the sun, moon, stars, satellites and other objects unrelated to the shape of the earth. Saying the distance to the sun proves the shape of the earth is not science. It is unfounded speculation. Sort of like saying different monkey skeletons prove evolution. Unfounded speculations. Though lights in the sky are sometimes useful in an argument, these objects and the way they behave have little to do with the shape of the earth directly. Holding these theories as the absolute truth and ridiculing anyone who dares ask questions or think up alternate theories goes against the very definition of science. Therefore I challenge my opponent to prove that for one, the earth has the curvature allowed for a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, and it's supposed axial rotation at the speed of about 1,000 miles per hour.

1. Burden of proof is shared, meaning I must also prove that the earth is NOT a ball.
2. Round 1 is for either acceptance or my opponent may start his argument in this round and forfeit the last round, since the forfeit bug is a nuisance, he must simply type forfeited in the last round, any forfeiture before then is considered a concession and a loss.
3. No new proofs in round 3.
4. Since con's arguments are mostly empirical observations, and essentially against the most widely accepted views of the scientific community, any source can be considered valid until that source is proven untrustworthy, or that proof is found to be fake beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Sources may be typed into a linked Google document placed in the argument.
5. Definitions are pretty self explanatory, but anything I missed may be discussed in the comments section l.
Good luck to my opponent in proving that spinning ball, should he be brave enough to accept the challenge. This challenge has been issued several times with a few thousand dollars as a reward, and it hasn't been met yet, so I feel confident my opponent hasn't a chance.


I accept this debate; I hope this will be an engaging and thoughtful debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Since this will likely be a lengthy debate, and my opponent and I are already aquainted, I'll just jump right into what evidence that I deem is worthy of review. I have seen hundreds that, although have seemingly been "fixed" by modern science to fit the heliocentric model, when looked at objectively and collectively, prove that the earth is flat.

C 1.Not one photo or video of the entire earth from space

NASA has supposedly had almost 50 years to get this done. Despite thousands of satellites strewn about at various distances from our home planet, all we as taxpayers receive in return for approximately $1 trillion are Photoshop images, or "composites", and very few of them. Though they claim to have done it in the late sixties on the back of the equivalent of an original gameboy, technology has improved so much that we should have a live streaming HD camera on the moon trained on our home planet available to all taxpayers. They will likely never be able to give us this. One can go to NASA's website and check the details of most images of earth and see this, and since NASA owns and operates several high altitude planes, (1) these scans of earth and patching them together in Photoshop can also be done on a flat Earth. Images claimed to be real are easily shown to be fake.
C2 Distances sighted

Joshua Nowicki has photographed the Chicago skyline from across lake Michigan for some time now.(2) A local weatherman saw one of the photos and it was featured on the evening news (3). As he states, this should not be possible, this much I agree with. At a distance of 57 miles, the curvature over the earth is 2,166 feet. The tallest building in Chicago is Willis tower at 1,450 feet, yet we can see a majority of all of the buildings, minus what swell and perspective would hide. (57x57)8"12=2,166.

Nobody was ever taught or demostrated this simple formula throughout school, I believe this was done on purpose, for good reason. But here's a quick lesson from Dr. Samuel Rowbotham;
"IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet..."

Basically you have to square the distance in miles and multiply by 8 inches to get the answer in inches, from there you divide by 12 to get the feet.: this formula has been verified and AutoCAD programs(4) and is accurate for any mileage up to 1000 miles. I contend that he is wrong in his assertion that these photographs are mirages, (5) and that this is direct evidence of a flat earth. There are several more instances where people can see a lot farther than they should on a regular basis but I'll just limit it to 2 to save space.
Two islands off the coast of Madagascar (7) are visible each way on every "clear winter night". These islands are approximately 150 miles away from each other. The math gets a little bit more complicated when you're dealing with higher altitudes, so I've simplified it by linking an earth curvature calculator. Since we have a picture identifying mountains in that article, well use this. Reunion seen from Mauritius 2nd picture from bottom (8) Shows Cimendef (minus what a few swells and waves would hide and what perspective would shrink it to) in its entirety. We can see most of this mountain. This Mountain stands at a little over 4000 feet.(9) The tallest mountain on Mauritius is about 2700 feet,(10) I'll be generous and say the photographer climbed to the top of this mountain to take the picture. Again I don't think this is the case but I'll be generous for simplicity. This would put the target (Cimendef) at a distance of 150 miles distance behind almost 5,000 feet of curvature.(11)

C3 High altitude balloon flights show a flat and eye level

I will use two videos not only to save space but because of their relevance to the type of camera used by NASA as a means of deceiving the population into see the curvature when there is none. The dog cam (12) has two cameras mounted on it, one uses a fisheye lens and one uses a standard lens. You can see the difference when you look at the fisheye lens and see the Horizon morphing, and even sometimes going concave. Another video is the Red Bull Stratosphere dive(13) where Felix brown hair jumps Chrome this region. The standard lens is a little harder to catch on this flight, they don't use one on the outside of the crap. You must pause the video when Felix is still inside the craft and the camera is inside looking over his shoulder at a flat, eye level horizon.
C4. Sunset over water
Anyone that has been to the ocean on a clear day you can see this.(14) This is impossible if we were living on a giant ball. The reflection that the sun produces is a linear one while a reflection from a ball would produce a specular highlight.(15) We wouldn't be able to see a reflection at all, seeing as how the Sun is supposedly below our feet as it touches the horizon, and the horizon supposedly stops at 3 miles for the average 6-foot human. This specular highlight world be on the side of the earth facing the sun, where it would be noon.
C5 Planes fly level

If the earth were a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference, plane travel would be a lot different. For instance, the Lockheed YF-12 flies at top speeds of mach 3.35. This is 2570.352 miles per hour. Divide this number by sixty and we get 42 miles per minute. Plug this number into out formula (42x42)8=1,223 feet. The YF-12 would have to descend over 1 mile every 5 minutes at top speed in order not to end up stalling in a nose up ascent, or leaving the earths atmosphere.

No motion ever detected

That rounds up the "sperical" part, now to find out if were moving like claim we are. Several experiments have been performed in the past trying to prove that we are moving at all. None have been able to do it. Even Einstein said "I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment". The Michelson Morley experiment, Aireys Failure and The Sagnac experiment all show that there is no spinning, wobbling, and flying through space in some random explosion's aftermath. If we are moving at breakneck (understatement) speeds in all directions, why can't we tell? Humans have the ability to detect motion, even when riding in an enclosed vehicle, an analogy science throws around.


Note: Sources (Numeric) and diagrams (Alphabetical) cited in comments.

Direct Observation

There most obvious proof of a spherical earth is direct observation, including the hundreds of astronauts in orbit, and thousands of pictures taken. These pictures are from the ESA[1], Russian Space Agency[2], NASA[3] the ISS live stream[4], amateur rocketry organizations[5], non-governmental space corporations such as Space X[6] and Scaled composites[7] pilots of high altitude planes, and James May, a former presenter of Top Gear [8]. That all of these images, videos, observers" amateur footage, and Captain slow himself, from unrelated and unaffiliated sources and in some cases hostile governments are all faking their pictures is neither credible nor possible.


Relative observations of where the sun and moon are viewed from points a surface, despite my opponents contentions, are not unrelated, but CRITICAL to understanding the shape of the earth. Using these relative observations of objects at the same time allow you to determine relative positions, and relative orientations of different observers on the earth; these combine to reveal the overall geometry of the earth.

So, to start, the moon has a constant angular velocity through the sky: meaning that it travels the same number of degrees when it appears as it does at any point through it"s arc [9][10]; it can also be shown that the moon does not change size by any significant margin as it moves across the sky; this is true for any observer.[11]

If the moon was traveling in a direction that took it closer or further away from the earth as a substantial fraction of the distance from the earth to the moon it"s size, and velocity through the sky would deviate. This is indicated by basic geometry of an observer viewing the same object at different distances shown in [A] and [B]

While the constant speed could be explained by continually changing speed over the course of its movement; this would cause wildly deviating angular speeds for different observers at differing locations [C], which is not observed and so can be ruled out.

Optical atmospheric effects bending the light, or changing the moons position in the sky significantly can be ruled out: the moon passes in front of stars which must pass through the same atmosphere at the same time; if these are unaffected and undistorted throughout the night, then atmospheric refraction or effects that appreciably change the position or size the moon cannot be occurring. Also, Most atmospheric effects are relatively transient depending on conditions; natural variations in these conditions would cause repeated discrepancies, and aberrations that could be detected, and are not.

So, due to these, the only possibility is that the distance from the moon to any other observer is approximately the same at all times it is visible; with the lack of change in size indicating the distance to the moon is significantly greater than the size of the earth. In other words, it must be travelling in an approximate circle for observations we see to be possible. [D]

Other observers at different locations; will also observe the moon traveling in this constant angular motion and size, but at different angular position in the sky. [E]

As it is not possible for the moon to physically be in two places at once, the distance between observers and the different viewing angle of the moon can be used work out the relationship between observers. As I have shown the path for moon must maintain constant distance from the two different observers, and thus can only be travelling in a roughly circular path, we can measure it"s position at different locations over time, and super impose these observations. [F][G]

It is clear from the diagram shown in [G] that there must be an angular difference in orientation between the two observers to account for the observed position of the moon between them. IE: "straight up" for one, is offset by an angle from the "straight up" of the other.

More observers can be added [H]; and using this same technique that shows that as you move in distance, the observers orientation can be demonstrated to change from 0, all the way through 360 degrees; a process that can be repeated for any direction they walk; the ONLY geometric surface in which this is possible, is a sphere. Thus, all other geometries of the earth other than a sphere can be ruled out through this observation.

Given the above; and given the nature of total eclipses [12], that occur at different positions on the earth at varying times of day; we know the sun doesn"t change size appreciably either; there are variations in size, which correlate to the specific time of year the eclipse is, not the position in the sky at which the eclipse occurs. IE the sun appearing larger in January that it does in July, but larger at every point in the sky where such eclipse occur.

It"s much harder to show photographic evidence by an amateur of the size of the sun, as the sun is an extraordinarily bright object with few features, and thus it is easy to fall foul of optical effects such as bloom[13], or poor focus[14] that obscures it"s true size in images. When decent solar filters, and good photographic equipment is used to take such images, they all show a constant angular size and speed of the sun too [15]

Thus, repeating the geometric analysis I provided for the moon can be performed on the sun with the same results.

Now that the geometry of the earth can be established: a sphere with the sun and moon travelling around the earth relative to observers; further calculations can be made and matched to other observations.

Using this geometry; we can further calculate the phases of the moon [16]; together with an explanation for them. Locations of solar eclipses [17], lunar eclipses [18], the position of the sun in the sky for all observers on earth [19], and the position of the moon in the sky for all observers on earth [20]. All calculations that are reliant on the curvature of the earth, constant angular motion and an exact match between longitude and latitude degrees, distance, and the relative direction of "up". If the observers do not have an orientation that matches their position on the sphere, these calculations cannot not work: they depend both on the moons position, and the orientation of the observer. If the latter is wrong, the calculated lunar position of that observer will be wrong too. But they"re not.

Even worse, these calculations all require a 1 degree change in viewing angle for the sun, the moon for every 69 degrees travelled in any direction at any point in earth; that is not possible in any other configuration other than a sphere with an approximate circumference of 24,000 miles [I][J][K]; without the sun being far enough away to be visible for all observers at once.

As a result, the observations are not only consistent with the spherical earth, the above demonstrate that such observations are not physically possible if the earth is not a sphere of 24,000.

Add to this, the visible horizon; and a maximum viewing distance from almost all positions and almost all times consistent with an earth curvature of 24,000 miles [21]; with objects appearing Below the horizon [22][23][24], which geometry and line of sight clearly shows cannot be significantly obscured by waves without them being higher than the height of the object being obscured, which should be observable. [L], The only possibility is the general sea level was physically higher between the two objects [L]; for this to be true at any location on earth; the earth must be a sphere.

The sole exception to this, are artifacts such as mirages, mock mirages, looming and stooping[25][26]; where varying degrees of atmospheric refraction can bend light around the horizon, allowing you to see objects that should be too far away to see: [27][28]

So, as we have established observation of the sun and moon, with geometry render it indisputable that the earth is a sphere; the last contention is whether the earth is spinning, or whether the sun revolves around the earth. As I have stated thus far, the sun appears to be revolving around the earth because of relative motion; the effect would appear the same to an observer on the earth for both.


Newton laws of motion, used throughout the world indicate that to produce acceleration on a mass, you need force [29]. As objects falling to earth are accelerated. While we may not understand what the force is, it is clear that earth exerts a force on all masses as a result. If the moon has mass, it either crashes to earth, flies off into space; or can orbit the earth through precisely defined periods [30]. For the planets to orbit around the earth, a convoluted system of extreme forces that are not measurable and unknown that produce no effect on earth, must be invoked to explain retrograde motion [31] due to Newton"s first law of motion. However, a force we already know exists combined with these laws of motion, allows us to determine that the existing force we understand allows planets to orbit around the sun with no other forces required.[32]

As we can accurately determine the distance of the moon [33], we can discover that the speed of rotation using Newton's laws indicates the sun has a much larger mass than the earth; and the earth/sun has an orbital speed consistent with the earth orbiting around the sun, and totally inconsistent with a required equivalent orbital period of the sun moving around the earth [34]. Add to this parallax of stars [35]; indicating that they are in different positions in summer and winter, allows us to determine the earth is in a physically different location relative to other stars in summer and winter.

All of these things together, make it incontrovertible that the sun is rotating around the sun; and thus to explain observations, the Earth must necessarily be spinning.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to my opponent for his Speedy response suspectively already typed up and ready to copy and paste. A good way to examine evidence is to first determine whether it is directly relative or proves the conclusion, then see if this proponderence of evidence is conclusive or not objectively, of course.

R1 Direct observations
My opponent seems to be confused as to the meaning of direct observation. Direct observation is defined as:
"Direct observation, also known as observational study, is a method of collecting evaluative information in which the evaluator watches the subject in his or her usual environment without altering that environment." What my opponent offers as evidence is indirect, meaning we must take someone's word for it. You also must alter the environment, or go to "space", which no civilian has ever done, much less my opponent, i or our voters. It is i who offers actual direct observations, that anyone can confirm, while my opponent offers pictures and videos from limited sources as if photoshop or a green screen didnt exist. The majority of his sources are governments, who don't have the best track record for honesty, matter-of-factly, they probably have the worst track record. From fruitless speeches of "no new taxes" to secret oaths, and secret societies, to several admitted false flags against their own people(1), it seems that governments are the last people we should trust. So in my honest opinion, we should look at these images in a very skeptical light, and think to ourselves, "could these images be faked?"

My opponent offers a few images in the way of proving his ball, so i will address some of these, the first two links are just curved horizon images, not unlike what the Red Bull dive video has. Had these images been videos, The camera would likely be fixed, as the footage from the ISS is, so as to prevent any morphing. Also note that the top of the curvature stays at eye level, which is inconsistent with the ball. So we can basically group these images and videos together, as they are numerous and can, and as i have shown, can be done easily with high altitude flights with a fisheye lens on a flat earth, and conclude that this is not concrete proof of a spherical earth. There's one supposed picture of the full earth on NASA's page, (3)which is admittedly created in photoshop, lazily. (4)

I'm kind of glancing over the very many sources my opponent offers, and to save space, I won't evaluate them all, but by grouping them into a few categories, we can explain what we are seeing. This leads me to source 5, which is a rocket, which, when we evaluate, shows no warping, and definitely does not remain stable, providing evidence that this is not a fisheye lens, and does seemingly show a very slight curve. In this instance, and any time the camera gets into a position where it is a visible distance from where the close, small sun's light ends, and night begins. The light from the sun creates a circle on the earth. Such as this(5), we are actually seeing the limits of it's light.
Source 6 is just fakex, who actually works for NASA. This video is just silly, Landing a pencil shaped rocket on a barge is impossible and plenty of people are not falling for it.(6)
Source 7 shows fisheye effects and concave earth at 4:15.
Source 8 show a curved horizon because it is viewed through curved glass, that is put on all planes. And most of us know what curved glass does to straight lines. (7)
and source 9 is a dead link.

It has been shown that these images could be faked, and given the fact that most of these images and videos reach altitudes similar to that of the dog cam and the Red Bull dive, and show varying levels of curvature while there is no lens presently that straightens out curved lines, we must assume that the dog cam horizon is the true one, and that the rest are either entirely faked, or misenterpreted. Especially when given direct observations examples of no curvature from here on earth. And that this proof fails the conclusive test.

R1 Geometry

My opponent insists that astronomical observations are critical to understanding the shape of the earth. This is speculation at best. When surveyors start their measurements on beginning the site of a building, are those surveyors carrying telescopes and observing the sky? Does a homeowner look to the skies, observing how birds fly over his house to check for it's level? My opponent claims that the flat earth has no way of predicting where celestial bodies will be, but this is entirely false. Ancient cultures accurately predicted eclipses, the sun and moon's motions, as well as the stars. The Mayans created a calendar based entirely on the fact that the earth was flat, which is still accurate today. The Egyptians, who also believed the earth was flat, built monolithic structures that were perfectly aligned with the predictions of stars, eclipses, the sun and the moon. An ancient tool, called the astrolabe, was constructed in ancient Greece over 2,000 years ago (when people knew the earth was flat, whereas they at least had the use of their basic senses, and weren't preprogrammed and indoctrinated with educational systems insisting the earth were a globe as a "fact" from day one). It was the most accurate tool for predicting the positions of all celestial bodies.
"...Typical uses of the astrolabe include finding the time during the day or night, finding the time of a celestial event such as sunrise or sunset and as a handy reference of celestial positions. Astrolabes were also one of the basic astronomy education tools in the late Middle ages...

The history of the astrolabe begins more than two thousand years ago. The principles of the astrolabe projection were known before 150 B.C., and true astrolabes were made before A.D. 400. The astrolabe was highly developed in the Islamic world by 800 and was introduced to Europe from Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) in the early 12th century. It was the most popular astronomical instrument until about 1650, when it was replaced by more specialized and accurate instruments. Astrolabes are still appreciated for their unique capabilities and their value for astronomy education..." (8)

My opponent insists that since modern astronomy can predict celestial bodies positions in the sky because they assume the earth is spherical, but since this has been done for thousands of years using the flat earth model, and in my opinion have very little to do with the shape of the terra firma beneath our feet, I must leave this decision to the voters to consider this as any sort of concrete evidence dIrectly related to or proves the conclusion. I do ask that voters ask themselves, how, over thousands of years, have the movements of celestial bodies been so accurately predicted, especially since, if the big bang theory were true, all bodies are spreading out, and spinning in such a chaotic manner? Could it be possible that modern astronomy has adapted these ancient means of these same predictions, changing the sizes and distances to fit the current model? Yes it is. Take the sun for example, the size and distance has changed multiple times in history per the current model. The sun is small and close, this much can be observed by small changes in size, my opponent insists that the change would be so great that it would be noticeable due to to perspective, but while perspective causes objects to change size greatly as they increase distance to the viewer, lights act differently. Take this photo for example.
(9) The lights further away from the camera are larger In some cases than those closer. This is due to the magnification effects of liquids in the atmosphere, which my opponent denies. It's still unclear what exactly the sun, moon and stars are at this point, but if modern astronomy and science were to acknowledge the shape of the earth as flat, we would no doubt figure it out. Regardless, this is a debate about the shape of the earth, the shape of the heavens are irrelevant, and my proofs far outweigh my opponent's in this debate, and are relevant. I must ask my opponent, since I have shown both the flatness of water over large distances, and there is no evidence of movement, which directly refute the basic tenants of the heliocentric model, what evidence could I bring that would disprove his model? If the spherical earth cannot be falsified, why should we consider it seriously per the scientific method? All that would be needed to falsify the flat earth for me would be authentic video of a whole spherical earth spinning from space.

R3 Big G
My opponent brings to the table another so called proof of a spherical earth, a force under the name of gravity. The only directly observational evidence that Big G exists is the observable fact that what goes up must come down, and this in no way suggests a spherical earth. This observable fact can actually be used against the spinning ball, in that anyone who has ridden on a gravitron at the fair can attest to the fact that anything spinning will exhibit centrifugal force, which is just the opposite of what is actually happening. It has not been shown that all objects are attracted to one another relative to their size as my opponent claims. Big G on a flat earth can be adequately explained using simple laws of buoyancy and densities. The molecules in Newton's apple were more dense than the molecules that made up the air around and under it. Why this happens can't be explained by my opponent's model or mine, it is just a natural tendency of nature, probably due to pressure. The submarine, when pressurized, or when air (mass) is added, floats. Depressurize that same submarine, or take some mass away from it, and it sinks. There are many holes in the theory of gravity, and even mainstream ballers question it's existence today.(10,11,12,13,14,15,16) So this proof fails both tests, as it does not directly prove the conclusion, and is not substantial evidence. Vote Con!


Rebuttals of my opponents argument:

C 1.Not one photo or video of the entire earth from space

In my previous links, there are innumerable images of the earth from space. My opponent seems to imply that a partial earth (due to being in low earth orbit) with viewable curvature is not sufficient; and instead the whole earth is required.

My opponent"s position here makes no sense; he claims that all images are photo-shopped by a conspiracy, and yet for some reason they are willing to fake LEO pictures, but not distant pictures; why not? If such pictures are so important, why do they not pretend they have a high satellite and fake those pictures too?

In reality, such pictures do indeed exist and require a large distance from the earth to take; good examples of such pictures are Apollo 8[1] and the EPIC camera[2]. Even so, the LEO pictures from multiple organizations clearly show the earth is spherical without showing the entire earth, and it is up to my opponent to explain why a clearly spherical, but not complete earth is not sufficient to show the earth is spherical.

My opponent also suggests many of these pictures are faked. Merely asserting such fakery is not meeting his burden of proof. My opponent must provide a coherent argument for how and why they were faked, a motivation for all these different organizations to collude to fake them, together with a practical way these organizations prevent people like James May, astronauts, amateur astronomers, private organizations and indeed whistleblowers from exposing the lie. Without such burden of proof, my opponents" claim of conspiracy can be dismissed as merely contrived speculation and assertion.

C2. Chicago Skyline.

When light passes through areas with different refractive index, it changes direction very slightly. This is how magnification, refraction, and many other optical effects work.[3]

In the atmosphere, such effects include inferior and superior mirages, mock mirages, looming and stooping[4][5]. These effects are ALL caused by a refraction of light through air layers, with the differences between them primarily being down to how much the light bends and at what position relative to the observer; inversion may or may not occur depending on how much and in what way the light is bent.

This skyline is well explained in my source as a refractive effect; but it can be clearly discerned as such where, in different conditions, the same skyline appears inverted: easily explained simply by changing of refraction due to marginally different conditions.[6]

Indeed, a time-lapse video [7] of this skyline can be compared; showing clear changes in magnification and buildings disappearing [8]; clearly indicating that this is an optical refraction, rather than a true image of Chicago.

C3 Mauritius and Reunion islands can be seen from each other.

To address this claim, we need to do some math, but to do so we need distances and heights. For this, I will focus on two individual images provided by my opponent [9][10]. One was taken on Piton de la Fournaise of Mauritius; the other taken from Mauritius of the mountains of Reunion.

The distance is 140 miles[11]. The heights of all of these locations (in feet) are:

Mauritius (highest elevation 2717)[12], Piton de la Fournaise (8635)[13], Roche Ecrite (7467)[14], Piton de Neiges (10,069) [15]

Curvature calculations from where the first picture was taken show only 450 feet of Mauritius should be obscured [16]. Even if it was not taken at the top of the mountain, even at 4500 feet (about 2/3 up), much of the tip of Mauritius" highest point would still be visible; consistent with the photo [17].

The second photo contains annotation and clear view of mountains: Roch Ecrit is 75% the size of Piton de Neiges; but in the image is about 1/3 of the size[18]. If the true difference in their height is 2500 feet, it means only 1250 feet of Roche Ecrit is visible in this image; leaving 6250 feet obscured.

To observe Reunion Island at 140 miles, with 6250ft of the island obscured, you need to be at a height of only 1243ft, which is more than possible on an island with a peak of 2717ft.[19] This indicates, despite my opponents claims, such views are perfectly reasonable on a spherical earth.

C4 Images from a high altitude ballon does not show curvature.

Taking your high altitude balloon video, you claim you can"t see curvature. If you look at a screen grab carefully, it"s very hard to discern where the horizon is to even draw a line to show it"s straight OR curved [20]; this is because of optical and image effects creating a blur that makes it difficult to tell the precise point at which the earth ends.

However, there are several tricks you can use to make the boundary clear. The first is that you can change the contrast and color to make small changes in color more prominent [21], which starts to reveal the curvature. To increase the sharpness of the horizon even more, you can downgrade the image to 4 bit color[22]. This quantizes the very subtle changes in the colors in the blur between earth and space in the picture, and allows a very distinct cut off color change between them, clearly showing curvature hidden by the blur and color of the original image.

The curvature is not optical distortion, as the top of the camera on the right hand side of the image is straight [22], IE: the camera is not distorting straight lines roughly level with the horizon out to at least 75% of the image width; as earths curvature is discernible in this region; this is genuine curvature.

As for the second: estimating, the camera is around 1.5 meters away from the door, and the un-obscured part of the opening is about 50 cm. This yields a viewing angle from the camera of 18.4 degrees. A horizon 430 miles[23] away has a curvature of 6 degrees over a viewing angle of 60 degrees (1 degree per 69 miles, and approximately 430 miles of horizon at 60 degrees ); that means you would see about 2 degrees of curvature over the 18.4 degree field of view the camera has.

The Horizon in the image is 212 pixels wide [24], and doing some more math indicates that the highest point in the curve should be 0.4% the width of the horizon in the image above the horizon. As the horizon in the image is about 212 pixels wide, the horizon in the image should bulge in the center by 1 pixel [25]. Applying the same color adjustments as before, the predicted curvature is exactly what we see! [26]

C5 Reflection of the sun off water.

The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile, or a curvature of 0.00013 (or 0.013%). To an observer to the ground, the earth is flat when measured up to 3 decimal places; so you have to be remarkably far away to see curvature effects. Your specular highlight source image, scaled up to the size of the earth and an observer, the highlights would be hundreds, if not thousands of miles and so therefore cannot be easily viewed while on earth.

The linear sun in the reflections is caused because the sea is not flat, and variations in height caused by waves cause an elongated sun; it"s cause clearly seen here: [27]. When reflecting on a flat surface, this artifact disappears and the water simply becomes a reflective surface.[28]

Moreover, from space, at a high enough distance, the reflection you expect on a spherical surface is observed.[29]

C6 Planes fly level.

This is explained by how plane controls work. The Yoke controls the orientation of the plane; with pitch being the angle between the plane and the horizon[30]. Moving the yoke causes the pitch to change. The amount you move the yoke corresponding to a given RATE of change in pitch[31]: If you move the yoke, the orientation to the horizon will change and keep changing until you return the yoke to the central position, or until not aerodynamically maintainable.

The orientation with respect to the earth changes by 1 degree per 69 miles travelled. Even in a plane is travelling as fast as Mach 5+ this corresponds to 1 degree per minute change in orientation. Even at this extreme speed, the pilot need only push forward on the yoke a tiny, imperceptible amount to achieve a rate in change of the planes pitch to be 1 degree per minute in order to match that of the earth. To maintain level flight, the pilot puts the yoke in a position that maintains constant orientation with an imperceptible rate of change in pitch that maintains both orientation and altitude; and does not require constant adjustment.

6.) No motion detected.

The earth spins at about 1000 miles an hour at the equator [32]; as the earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles; the relative motion experienced is the same as travelling at a speed of 4 miles per hour in a circle 96 miles wide. As we can"t feel the centripetal force of a circular, mile long walk; it should be expected that you wouldn"t be able to feel a force several orders of magnitude weaker. My opponent is focusing on the 1000 mph, forgetting the 25,000 miles that makes the perceived force so weak.[32]

My opponent also cites failures of 3 experiments to show the earth is spinning; without explaining how, or why these experiments show this. In actuality, these three experiments were not concerning the absolute movement of the earth, but the movement of the earth and light relative to the movement of lumineferous aether. These experiments were brought about to prove the effects of this aether, and all failed because the Aether doesn"t exist [33].

Interestingly, there are many examples of measurements that show the earth is spinning using the basic principles of conservation of angular momentum. Pendulums change their orientation over time due to the spinning earth[34]; as do gyroscopes[35], and Sagnac interferometers[36].

So my opponents" claim that no measurement can show the earth is spinning is clearly wrong; as these basic observations all demonstrate the effect clearly.
Debate Round No. 3


I explained earlier how evidence should be examined. First you check to see whether it is relevant to the outcome. Then you check to see if that evidence is substantial enough to be a proof. I've shown that more of my arguments pass more tests than my opponent's measly 3, none of them passing both tests.
Not one picture or video...
"In my previous links, there are innumerable images of the earth from space"
All of which are proven fakes, or misunderstood, as I explained in the last round, which my opponent ignores, likely because he pretypes his rounds. Maybe I wouldn't have had to rebut this twice, nevertheless we'll discuss pictures from NASA and co., yet again.

" he claims that all images are photo-shopped by a conspiracy, and yet for some reason they are willing to fake LEO pictures, but not distant pictures; why not? "

I didn't claim all images are Photoshop for conspiracy, I claimed that each image is Photoshop under NASA's admission. Again, this is why we read the last round arguments before we type up a rebuttal in a formal debate. They stitch scans of the earth together in Photoshop, to create a ball (11). Leo pictures and videos are using fisheye cameras. The ISS footage is a miniature version in front of a green screen. Like I said, with more than half of Americans realizing events like 9/11 were staged or false flag events, including many architects and engineers(14), it's become impossible to trust authority sources.

"good examples of such pictures are Apollo 8 and the EPIC camera."

Both images are put out by NASA, by looking at both the proofs presented here and in the last two rounds. As stated in rule #4 in round 1. I feel that this source has been proved untrustworthy multiple times. If this isn't enough, I will provide a few more instances showing that NASA is faking images of earth on several accounts, and move to dismiss this source, and any evidence using it. Source 2 has obvious discrepancies, and I'm glad to say my daughters 4th grade class's dictionaries were switched when I showed her principal this(1) and the three sixes over Antarctica. Which overlaps with this(2) This gem, that has a virtually craterless dark side of the moon (the one that isn't protected by the earth, and it's gravity) and clouds that never change formation over how many hours? Not to mention the apparent flyby instead of an orbit. (It doesn't change size)(3) Pluto on Pluto(4) Han Solo frozen in Mercury, on Mercury (5) This video includes footage of rockets "reaching escape velocity" by just going over a big arch and back down to earth.(6) Not to mention the tape of astronots faking pictures of earth. (7)

I would spend more time on this, but since the point has been made, I'll leave this source and evidence in the hands of the voters. People ask me why I don't trust NASA...

"whistleblowers from exposing the lie."(8) There is.

RR2 Distances sighted

Chicago skyline
This is one of those cases where globalists make the curvature unfalsifiable. Like saying ya, we see a lot farther than we should, and the earth looks flat, but its just a trick of the eye. When the sun is making a silhouette out of the skyline, do we still assume this is a mirage?(12,13) If someone were to get in a boat and ride this distance, and it was visible the entire way, would we still assume this is a mirage?(9) My opponent gives some different types of refractive effects, inferior and superior mirages(14), mock mirages (15)and atmospheric bending, which are not mirages, in looming and stooping, but he doesn't suggest which type this is, that appears all day, and into the night. Mirages are not known to last long, and ALL mirages have some type of inversion. Mock mirages only deal with sunsets, providing green flashes, and a small inversion of the sun above it. This leaves us with looming and stooping. Looming effects are very rare and appear most commonly in polar regions. As the two time lapses, and the very many photographs of the Chicago skyline shows, this is not rare. Stooping is just when an object appears shrunken, and since this is supposed to be doing the opposite, we can rule this out. Lake Michigan is known to have up to 65 feet waves, so the bottom not being visible is due to this.

Mauritius and Reunion

My opponent all but ignores my argument and invents his own for rebuttal with no mention of Cimendef. Seems like a dodge, but we'll continue.

"Even if it was not taken at the top of the mountain, even at 4500 feet (about 2/3 up), much of the tip of Mauritius" highest point would still be visible"

Much more than just the tips of these peaks are visible. My opponent concludes that we should be able to see what we see in this pictures, but I must ask him, from Piton de la Fournaise to Roche Ecrite is almost 100 km, so there should be 2,562 feet of curvature in the middle. Where is this curvature?

My opponent apparently misunderstood the Dog Cam proof. The screen grab he manipulated is from the fisheye camera on the balloon, or the left side, we can see the obvious curvature when the video is cut to this camera. The right camera shows a perfectly level horizon. His entire rebuttal is therefore irrelevant. I question whether he was being dishonest or just not being thorough in his examination, which is apparent in his pretyped rounds so far.

His evaluation of the Red bull dive is equally dishonest, I actually zoomed into his source 26 picture and his red line actually drops below the 1pixel worth of "curvature". So it is not the horizon that curves upward 1 pixel at over 120,000 feet, it is his line that curves downward 1 pixel, then back up. I'm sure my opponent will think of some other way to deceive us

RR5 Reflection of the sun off water
"The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile,"

This true for the first mile, but we don't live on a slope, my opponent is misleading in his statement. The average person standing close to see level will not see the ocean's surface past 3 miles. Since the sun is 93,000,000 miles away in your model, the angle that the sun hits the earth would produce a reflection that would not be visible at the time of sunset. My opponent provides a "picture" from space, likely a fisheye lens, but the reflection is indeed what we would see on any size ball, a specular highlight, so why don't we see this on a level that everyone can verify? My opponent also offers a picture of a sunset on a flat surface of water that if indeed were curved at the required 8" per mile squared would show a fun house mirror type reflection. He completely ignored the experiment I have provided that would show this.

RR6 planes fly level.

My opponent appears to mislead the voters with his own translation of the earth' s curvature that 1 degree of a ball that is 25,000 miles would not be great enough to notice. The declination would be, according to spherical geometry, 1,223 feet per minute, 20.3 feet per second which would be very noticeable indeed.

RR No motion detected

My opponent claims that we don't notice that we are moving faster than the speed of sound because the earth is so big.... Even at 4 miles per hour, humans can tell they are moving, especially if you were moving yourself, on a slow hayride for example, when one moves from front to back, there is a noticeable difference than going the other way. We aren't even accounting for the rest of earth's supposed motions in every imaginable direction. Were tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around the central axis, traveling 67,000 mph around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the galaxy rockets 670,000,000 mph through the Universe. That's a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we"re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever. These experiments my opponent denies were done to show the earths motions in respect to the aether. Since none was found, and it was ASSUMED that the Earth was spinning, it was implied that the aether didn't exist instead of that rotation which is why Einstein said what he did, which my opponent drops. Sagnacs interferometer proved the aether existed, which science then covered up.(10)

Foucault pendulum can easily be faked with magnets, or may even be due to rotation electromagnetic frequencies from our 2 celestial bodies, which might explain the Allias effect, when modern astronomy cannot, It's discoverer explains this phenomenon with effects of the aether. During eclipses, the pendulum is know to change directions, and increase or decrease it's speed. So do eclipses cause the earth to change directions or decrease or increase it's movements? My opponent offers gyroscopes as proof of a spinning earth while citing a wiki link for gyrocompasses... Let's read.
"Although one important component of a gyrocompass is a gyroscope, these are not the same devices"
and then:
"A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth)"

Meaning that gyros remain in a fixed position relative to space from which they are started. So as the earth spins under it, the gyro should counter rotate at the same speed. However several experiments show this is not the case(16). And planes are outfitted with gyros that should also counter rotate, rendering these(17) useless. Which further proves C5 Planes fly level.

I'm sure my opponent will try to deceive our voters in the last round. I urge voters to be skeptical of his evidence.

Vote con!


Looking at our two arguments; my approach has been to rigorously show through mathematics, and physical principles why the earth is spherical, and to provide an explanation of the observations Con cites as evidence.

It appears Con's approach has left me very little to refute in this round, as he has not produced any mathematics, or any analysis, and has mainly relied on a series of assertions in his previous two rounds. Unfortunately, asserting something is true is insufficient to meet his burden of proof, in which he has to prove his position is correct. So, lets go through his arguments:

Everything is faked.

Con seems to dismiss most of the evidence that disagrees with him by saying it's faked. As described in my previous round (to which he has not responded), he needs to be able to show evidence of this rather than simply assert it. Every image of space is faked, pendulums are faked; even a straight line with MS paint as faked. These are merely assertions without evidence, and can be ignored.

Geometry Part 1.

In my main argument I show in great detail that the only geometric configuration that will allow for the observations of the moon by different observers is if those observers are orientated on a sphere. I explained that other configurations are impossible as the observers are in different orientations in any other configuration: this would cause the moon not to appear in the position that it does for everyone.

Con offers no argument against this proof and instead asserts without argument that these direct consequences of geometry as "speculation". It's not. It is careful and considered application of geometry that shows the only configuration that satisfies observations is a spherical one.

Geometry Part 2.

A geometric definition of the earth, sun and moon allows the observed position of the moon, sun, planets and stars to be calculated directly using the mathematics related to that configuration. If the earth is not a sphere, then such calculations will not match observation as described.

Cons claim that being able to derive astronomic periods is irrelevant to my argument, which is not that we can"t determine these things any other way, but that it is only possible to calculate them accurately in terms of a single unifying geometry if we have an accurate description of the geometry of the earth.

As such, Con's argument is a straw man, as he is refuting an unrelated argument that I am not making.

Optical effects.

Con rejects a video that shows dynamic changes in view, large distortion, inversions and magnification over time, is caused by atmospheric effects. He merely asserts that broadly the same humidity, temperatures and pressures cannot be maintained over a day.

However, in his argument concerning the moon, he argues that a consistent, unchanging, magnification due to atmospheric effects conspire to make the moon look like it is the same size; all day, every day, every point in the year.

This is incoherent.

Atmospheric effects produce distortion, unpredictable and changeable effects, because the atmosphere constantly changes water content, density, temperature and pressure; all aspects that can effect how light moves through it. Such effects are relatively well understood. The image of Chicago, as I pointed out, suffers from all these effects, whereas the moon does not.

My opponent has conspicuously ignored this in his reply.

The image my opponent provides as evidence of "magnification" does not show any atmospheric effect, but a trivial effect called "The circle of confusion". When a camera focuses on an element in the foreground, light from far off objects goes out of focus due to them having a focal point different from the film or CCD; this makes them look larger. This is simply down to the way cameras works.[1]

Even so, my opponent fails to provide an explanatioon of constant angular velocity of the moon, which as shown is not possible unless the moon is travelling at a constant distance from the osberver.


As explained, Objects only accelerate if a force is applied to them. This means whether Con likes it or not; gravity must be a force. I described in detail how such a force produces orbits, and the measurements of orbits are consistent exactly with what they would be produced if gravity is a force between two bodies. Is it merely coincidence that all planets and the moon orbit in precisely the way gravitational calculations require them to? What makes the sun and moon move if not gravity? How could gravity, a force well supported by evidence and science not exist?

None of Cons sources indicate gravity doesn't exist; or doesn't work the way it claims for our solar system, but are down to us not knowing what it is, and not knowing how it applies to the wider universe fully.


The earth is a sphere, beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not reasonable to think this could ever be proven wrong as no known observation that could refute it, which has not already been made.

That every way of falsifying a spherical earth has failed, such that we have now run out of practical ways to falsify it does not mean that a spherical earth is un-falsifiable, and my opponent grotesquely confuses the two.

If Con can provide a consistent mismatch between geometric observations of the sun, moon stars and earth ONLY explainable by the geometry being wrong rather than by other effects; together with his alternative geometric calculations that he can show are more accurate descriptions of where the sun, moon and earth can be seen for different observers at different times of day; this would go a significant way to showing the earth was sphere.

Thus far, however, Con has provided no refutations to mathematics, no mathematics of his own, no calculations or geometry that show his position is correct. If he was correct, and he can show another geometric configuration that can provide a mathematically accurate description of reality; this should and would have been the first argument he provided.

Con dismisses evidence as fake, invokes a collection of ad-hoc, unrelated explanations and effects to explain observations consistent with a spherical earth, none of which supported by evidence; and provides no mathematical analysis that even allows his position to be scrutinized.

In an ironic twist, he then claims that his opponents position is unfalsiifable...


I provided key and detailed mathematics indicating why the pictures Con cited can be viewed on a spherical earth. He simply says I am wrong, and offers no mathematics to justify his claim; which as with the rest of his argument, he simply asserts.

Balloon images.

Con asserts that a picture he claimed demonstrates a flat earth is now using a fish eye camera. Why chose a picture which you know is distorted to prove your claims? In reality, the image is un-distorted in the central region of the horizon as shown for the reasons I explained; in the red-bull image, the maths clearly show the curvature viewed is what is expected; and simply claims I faked the images. The line was drawn from horizon start to stop, using the MS Paint line tool, and is dead straight.

Plane Controls.

I clearly explained why the constant drop of the earth is trivially accounted for by moving the yoke on the plane forward an imperceptible amount. My opponent offers no reasoning why this won't work; and simply restates his claims.


My opponent is correct; I said "gyroscope" instead of "Gyrocompass". In my source I cited, there is clear definition and reference on how it uses the earth spinning to work; my opponent manages to "accidently" miss that part out of his argument.


The observations I have described above are all comprehensively explained through a single unifying geometry; and I have provided a clear set of arguments that prove this, and explains Con's observations.

My opponent has failed to even argue against the core proof of a spherical earth, nor raised any significant argument against the fact that all observations are explained by this single geometric configuration; and demonstrably cannot be explained by any other; including his preferred flat earth.

He asserts pictures are faked; he asserts that the moon is magnified by just the right amount so it appears to remain unchanging in size; he asserts gravity doesn"t really exist, though can offer no explanation of anything that gravity can explain, nor tries. He asserts curved horizons are not curved; that light cannot bend around the horizon, but can bend when it suits his argument; that geometry is speculation, unless it supports his position at which point he argues geometry proves his point.

What Con is attempting to do with his last two replies, is to simply assert his claims in most of the cases without even acknowledging or directly refuting the logic of the main points I am raising, and expects me to use my word count to refute his assertions.

While that is possible, I can go into extreme detail (and have in most cases), why his observations and claims are incorrect; I don't have the word count to refute every single one of his unsupported, speculative assertions, especially when there are so many in such short space of time.

However, given the debate, I do not need to. It is clear I have met my burden of proof, and it is clear that to meet his burden of proof my opponent must explain rather than assert why his position is correct. He has utterly failed to do so, and this should be clear to anyone who reads this debate.

As a result, readers must agree that the earth is spherical, it is spinning, and that my opponents arguments are without merit and baseless. He has clearly not met the burden of proof in any of his claims nor any of his refutations, and as such the only reasonable option for readers of this debate is to vote PRO as a result.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanneJeRusse 21 hours ago
I would like to vote here, but unfortunately, this site requires too much personal information to become a voter. Why they require that is baffling considering this site is ignored by the owners anyways.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 weeks ago
i liked how you could say the line was "drawn in ms paint" but you couldn't say it was straight. Jokes
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 weeks ago
Or you could have read the previous rounds before you typed up your next round. It's not my fault the flat earth has 10-15 times as many proofs than a spherical one, all of which are either anecdotal, theoretical, insubstantial, or unrelated.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 weeks ago
And to everyone else commenting, feel free to vote.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 weeks ago
Yes; Skeptic explained it with that quote: specifically a Gish Gallop.

As I was responding to two of your rounds, there's limited space and word count. Importantly though, the primary difference is that I proved detailed in depth explanations on each one of your arguments, as well as providing a deep justification, from first principles for the key contentions I have made.

Fortunately, as you've claimed we share burden of proof; I don't need to refute assertions, and can simply point out that they are assertions.

As I also pointed out, you dropped or simply did not argue against at least 7 individual points I made, which would be fine if they were small ancilliary points; but these 7 points were the most fundamental and key to the proof of a spherical earth.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 weeks ago
surprise surprise, how many arguments did you drop ram?
Posted by Zaephou 3 weeks ago
Concerning con's profile pic, the methods used to take pictures of the moon and send signal to a house are completely different, so the statement is non-sequitur and reductio ad absurdum (I know I am refuting a meme but I felt the need to address it).
Posted by Zaephou 3 weeks ago
Con misunderstands angular momentum, and simply falls to the argument from assertion, why? Because he falls into the argument from assertion.
Posted by Ramshutu 3 weeks ago
Bah too late; sorry.

Last source:


@Skepticalone: I just moved from the US to the UK (then maybe moving countries again in a month, we'll see). I went straight to the airport to the hotel for a wedding.
No votes have been placed for this debate.