frame

Earth is a ball

Opening Argument

ErfisflatErfisflat 815 Pts
edited December 3 in Earth Science
Looking for one conclusive piece of evidence that the earth is a spinning ball. When examining the evidence without bias, one can only conclude that it is flat.
SilverishGoldNovaNopenamemcname
  1. Is the earth A ball?

    17 votes
    1. Yes
      76.47%
    2. No
      23.53%
    3. I don't know
        0.00%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

«13456710

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    Occam's razor states that it is more likely that the earth is round than that the entirety of the scientific community combined with pretty much every government is conspiring to deceive you.
    ErfisflatGhostyPogueSilverishGoldNova

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Medic said:
    Occam's razor states that it is more likely that the earth is round than that the entirety of the scientific community combined with pretty much every government is conspiring to deceive you.
    Because governments and science never lies and or is never wrong. Occams razor actually supports a flat stationary earth, seeing as this is what our senses tell us.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 815 Pts
    edited December 1
    We must make the assumption that the government's and government backed scientists are telling us the truth and that are senses are deceiving us, instead of their word, anything else?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • And the "entirety" of scientists don't necessarily say the earth is a ball.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • I will believe that the Earth is a ball when you give me a sensible map of a flat earth.
    And please explain what is happening when a boat seems to rise from the ground when it is coming from the horizon. 

  • Ghosty said:
    I will believe that the Earth is a ball when you give me a sensible map of a flat earth.
    And please explain what is happening when a boat seems to rise from the ground when it is coming from the horizon. 

    The most widely accepted flat earth map is the AE map. I'm not a cartographer, so I can't assume it is correct. 

    Boats disappear and reappear over the horizon due to refraction from an accumulation of water in the air.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors, but a plane's centre of mass is in the middle. Were the earth to be flat, 

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/ani-centergravity22.gif

    this would occur. It doesn't. We can tell this by our senses and dropping things. Gravity is constant on earth. The only logical inference we can make is that it is "round".

    https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/ani-centergravity12.gif
    Erfisflat

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • "This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors"

    I've not ignored evidence thus far, to the contrary, I addressed your argument with a reasonable response that you have ignored. I'm asking for conclusive evidence, and the priors that I have are from 2+ years of research. 

    "Were the earth to be flat, this would occur."

    Speaking of assumptions, you are assuming that gravity exists. The observation that objects fall leads to the conclusion that up is up and down is down. The theory of gravity was concocted under the assumption that the earth was a ball. A theory that supports your assumption, a logical fallacy.

    @Medic
    MedicGhosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Medic I must have missed the funny in that. As you said, "This is pretty pointless because it seems like you're ignoring all evidence that doesn't confirm your priors."
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    This is reasonably pointless, given that once one starts denying the relevance of proven physical phenomena like gravity to the debate, we can safely assume the line of "no return" has been crossed. Gravity is simply caused by the distortion of spacetime by mass.

    Regardless, I've simply got twoquestions for you. One - wouldn't the proving of the earth to be flat be a major propaganda coup for, say, China? Why is it the case that all governments and all scientific consensus agree on this topic, if proving what you see to be the truth would be so advantageous to them. Second, if I were to take an aeroplane and fly it at, say, the speed of sound times five, what would happen after I passed over the edge of the world? I'm genuinely curious. 

    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaWilliamSchulzGhosty

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    Then feel free to back up your claim of it being an ad hominem attack.

    You'll of course keep in mind that an ad hominem attack is not merely any attack someone finds rude or insulting, but one which relies on attacks on someone's character to rebutt their point. Trying to make the claim that someone was making an ad hominem attack when they actually pointed out the issue with your argument - such as explaining that you had pretended people had conceded when they had not - and then also said something you thought was mean would of course just show you had no idea what you were talking about and didn't understand the ad hominem logical fallacy.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 815 Pts
    edited December 1
    "Gravity is simply caused by the distortion of spacetime by mass."

    That's some great science fiction, but it's not a "proven" phenomenon as you falsely claim. It is an assumption based on an assumption meant to explain how one could live on the underside (whichever side that is) of a spinning ball, which I might add, in any demonstrable circumstance, produces the opposite effect.


    Bendy space time sounds cool, but it's purely fantasy at it's core.

    "One - wouldn't the proving of the earth to be flat be a major propaganda coup for, say, China."

    What does China's space industry make a year? Is it beyond reason that the governments of the world conspire together? Besides, your points stems from your initial argument, paraphrasing, "because they said so", which is a logical fallacy.  

    "if I were to take an aeroplane and fly it at, say, the speed of sound times five, what would happen after I passed over the edge of the world?"

      Five times the speed of sound in dry air or moist? 

    If I were to obtain an aircraft that could fly 3,802.791696 Miles per Hour, and flew as far as I could south, I would find out. Maybe there's an edge, maybe not. Earth may be an infinite plane. The Antarctic treaty prevents most everyone from finding out. Do it, if you get past the U.N. you've probably got an ice desert to cross before you see anything, I'd guess you'd hit a barrier some call the firmament. It's an unanswerable question nonetheless.
    @Medic


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Ampersand

    Perhaps you would like to address an argument or formulate your own for a spherical earth. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Remember kids, saying the Earth is a ball because Mars is a ball is like saying "look at the cute dog in the bottom right corner"


    ErfisflatMedicGhostyfea
     
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 815 Pts
    edited December 1
    @Ampersand
    You haven't addressed any specific points, instead, you've chosen to insult my debating style, which is basically a character trait. The fact that you haven't explained how your ad hominem attack even relates to my argument and you've not offered an argument or rebuttal anything specifically speaks for itself. Your argument is basically a big "nuh-uh", "your mom", and will be ignored.
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 6 hours.

    "As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded."

    Long enough, @Ampersand ?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 
    Erfisflat
  • Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As is obvious, all arguments for a spherical earth are refuted and their defendants have conceded.
    I'm on mobile so can't offer any reply in depth at the moment, but this is incredibly childish. You are pretending that people have conceded because they haven't replied within a few hours of you posting.

    Not only that but you think you declaring your arguments as being winning arguments is the same as them being that in fact.
    I see no argument here, just an ad hominem attack.
    Then feel free to back up your claim of it being an ad hominem attack.

    You'll of course keep in mind that an ad hominem attack is not merely any attack someone finds rude or insulting, but one which relies on attacks on someone's character to rebutt their point. Trying to make the claim that someone was making an ad hominem attack when they actually pointed out the issue with your argument - such as explaining that you had pretended people had conceded when they had not - and then also said something you thought was mean would of course just show you had no idea what you were talking about and didn't understand the ad hominem logical fallacy.
    You attacked Erfisflat's debate style rather than his arguments.
     
  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    Right. I'm about to expend far too much effort on this. @Erfisflat

    You seem to have a misunderstanding of the starting point of science. It's conclusively not that we start from an understanding that the evidence of our senses is always correct. We start, as Socrates said, from the fact that "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

    So let's,together, perform some science. It's not an edifice made by boffins in a laboratory, it's easy and simple.

    So starting from nothing, we can peform one simple observation. You put a brick on a table, the brick stays on the table. You can come back in a week, the brick will still be on the table. It will not have moved. Therefore, we need to explain this. Hypothesis: things that are at rest stay at rest. Testing: We can put lots of other things in lots of other places, and they will stay put. Conclusion: the hypothesis adequately explains the phenomenon.

    Now, we pick up this brick, and we drop it. It falls to the floor. This is now inconsistent with our ab initio science. Therefore, we must amend the hypothesis. Things that are at rest will remain at rest as long as they're on a table or the ground or some form of support. If they're in the air, something must be moving them - remember, we've proven that things at rest stay at rest unless a force acts upon them. Conclusion: a force is acting upon the brick as we drop it. We could call this force "splunge" or "nicknackynoo" but we choose to call it gravity.

    You see how we get from nothing to gravity existing without any reference to the earth being either flat or round? I doesn't matter at this stage.

    Now, we need to work out where this force is acting upon the object. Observation: If you drop, say, a hammer the hammer falls toward the heavier end. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts unequally upon objects. Furthermore, the heaviest bit of the hammer falls faster (it must, because it "turns" toward the heavy end). Conclusion: This force, which we call gravity, acts more toward the heavy bits of things than the light bits of things.

    Now, we want to work out where the force acts in things that aren't obvious, like humans. Observation: in order to balance anything, one must put the balancing point where there are equal amounts of mass each side. Hypothesis: therefore, this force, which we call gravity, acts through the "centre" of the mass. The place in the object where there are equal amounts of mass on all sides. Conclusion: Therefore, in things like humans, the centre of mass is roughly in the middle. 

    Furthermore, we know that gravity acts through the centre of mass, which means that the force goes through a thing's centre of mass to another thing's centre of mass.

    With these tools, which we worked out by simple experiment, we now attack the observation. Observation: humans do not fall off the earth. Hypothesis: therefore, the earth is flat. Testing: If the earth is flat, the center of mass would be in the middle. We can test this by trying to balance a round plane. We furthermore know that the force we call gravity acts through the centre of a thing's mass toward a centre of a big thing's mass.

    Expected observation to prove this hypothesis: therefore, things fall at different rates and different directions because they are different angles to the centre of the earth's mass and different distances away from it. We do not observe this. Testing: we can fly all over the known world, and drop bricks and hammers and books. We find that they fall at exactly the same rate. Conclusion 1: This hypothesis is inconsistent with facts. Conclusion 2: The Earth's gravitational field is constant.

    There is exactly one shape that explains this conclusion. The answer to the question that we pose - "Why don't humans fall off the world" is answered by science ab initio through simple experiments step by step is that - "The Earth is round. Gravity acts through humans's centres of gravity toward the centre of the world. The gravitational field is constant therefore the earth is round."

    I've also never satisfactorily recieved an answer to the question - "Why on Earth would anyone tell us that the Earth is round if it isn't?"

    The Earth is round. We landed on the moon. Science is real. Tax cuts lose money. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Enough already.
    Ghosty

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Ghosty said:
    Do you have evidence that the government is lying to all of us? You mean all the countries in the world have governments and scientists that are lying to us? 
    Surely you don't need me to prove that governments lie... You born yesterday?
    SilverishGoldNovaMedicGhosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch