The shape of the earth. - DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website! The Best Online Debate Website!
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The shape of the earth.

Opening Argument

ErfisflatErfisflat 941 Pts
edited February 12 in Earth Science
Since the other debate has now become very long, I've started a formalish debate where both sides can present evidence. Anyone can participate, and are encouraged to do so. No ad hominem, and please observe the scientific method and give supporting evidence in the form of experimentation. It isn't required, but is essentially the difference between pseudoscience. Bop is shared.





  1. What shape is the earth?

    7 votes
    1. A ball
      71.43%
    2. Not a ball.
      28.57%
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.

https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat


Debra AI Prediction

For
Predicted To Win
100%
Likely
0%
Unlikely

Details +


Points For:

0


Points Against:

0



Votes: 0

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting


Arguments

  • Round 1 | Position: For
    The Earth is an oval (due to the spin). A model must be able to predict all observations and everything works without interference. Solar and Lunar eclipses are predicted with the globe earth model. It perfectly explains everything. In the flat Earth model, you could not see the same constellations and stars in S.A. and Africa (or S.A. and Australia or Africa and Australia) (the two will both be night) because you would only be able to see the front. Also, the stars that are only able to see in the Northern Hemisphere would be visible in the South. 
    Reality: 

    Flat:


    Also, if a building is really tall you can see it but the base disappears over the horizon. 

    Question for a follow-up argument. How far away is the sun? 

    My argument is really short but these videos have a lot more information. 




    ErfisflatGooberry
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    edited February 14
    I guess me and Erf can work on the rebuttals, but for now, I would like to post some evidence to support the flat Earth.

    1. Physics of Water

    Perhaps, one of the biggest holes in the heliocentric spinning ball model is the natural physics of water.

    The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of luids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense [1] [2]. Water has also been proven to be undeniably flat, many, many times. One such example would be in this video [3].



    [3]

    2. Flight Patterns

    There are many flight patterns that, while they make absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth, make sense on a flat Earth. First off, looking at Antarctica, we know none of these flight patterns exist [4]. We know these are impossible on a flat Earth (especially if you have seen a flat Earth map) [5], but are possible on a globe Earth and infact, would result in shorter flight times. We are often told these flights do not exist because it is too cold. However, we are also told we have sent probes to outer space, which is MUCH more frigid. It is more of an excuse than an explanation.

    [6] [7] Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth. 


    3. No evidence of curvature.

    We are widely told we can see curvature at a height of around 35K Feet, the typical range where airplanes typically fly at. There have been reports of seeing curvature outside of an airplane window, but this has been debunked many times before. The curved glass of an airplane window will distort curvature [8]. We also have images showing no curvature from 80K feet, 121K feet, and 317K Feet [9] [10].

    Many images allegedly showing curvature from similar heights have been shown to simply be hoaxes, or were blatantly recorded using a fish eye lense. Heres a humoruous example [11]. We have also caught NASA admitting to faking images. "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17". If you read further, we also have them saying that they stitched a "flat map" collected with satelite data onto a ball. Interesting [12]. Not only this, but there are videos throughouly debunking the 2 images they just don't wanna admit are fake, as throughougly as my debunking of the rest of "photographic evidence" [13] [14] [15].
    [9]. photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMJEGjMR9YUv8g6cT5mVrbOCpYi2AtKa1Ty4gFdkRsDueZHhZPWDnMZv6NFP3nXPg?
    key=TFQwb2ZDOVlwOTZ1MWJraThnSHI4ZjNwRDlfeWpR

    [10]. DDD

    [11]. photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOBHWKzpDKBew5j94MHx335hYJz5pgjbeTqVVMG3_VknYDtJwjbCA4TGxpmSKp_PQ?key=ZVZEbEZmQVExVndzRjdvQnVzTXA4YW95VnZSTzVn

    [12]. scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24909797_201115210456444_6871387145744944406_n.jpg?oh=960f7db1365321e123a6c18b17b96d15&oe=5ACB6327

    [13]. nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    [14]. youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8wYukRsdQ

    [15]. youtube.com/watch?v=knaW-GxMDXw

    4. Chicago Skyline

    It is one of the most compelling arguments which convinced me into a flat Earth (and I must say thanks to Edl for waking me up) [16]. According to the globe Earth model, this should be impossible, and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon. However, this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true [17]. We may similarly use the Toronto skyline as evidence [18]



    [18]

    5. Midnight Sun

    The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! [19] [20]


    [20]

    6. Stars

    The final point I would like to bring up are stars.

    i. If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model. [21]

    ii. Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in. [22]



    Extras:

    I am not using this as an argument. All I ask is that you read it, and see if it wakes you up:

    ErfisflatGooberryPogue
    "I have left my Christian Religion, and realized what all Organized Religions have in common: "to replace our One and only Possible Creator God with their own version of god".- Evidence, on this website

    http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

    If you are an adult, there is no reason for you to keep believing in things like Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Cleveland Browns, The Arizona Coyotes, The Big Bang, Evolution, or the Sphere Earth Theory
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    NopeNope 213 Pts
    edited February 12

    "Perhaps, one of the biggest holes in the heliocentric spinning ball model is the natural physics of water.

    The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of luids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense [1] [2]. Water has also been proven to be undeniably flat, many, many times. One such example would be in this video [3]."
    This comment confuses me. There would be massive bulge of water in the ocean, Why? Which rivers would flow up hill.

    "First off, looking at Antarctica, we know none of these flight patterns exist [4]. We know these are impossible on a flat Earth (especially if you have seen a flat Earth map) [5], but are possible on a globe Earth and infact, would result in shorter flight times. We are often told these flights do not exist because it is too cold. However, we are also told we have sent probes to outer space, which is MUCH more frigid. It is more of an excuse than an explanation."
    I don't understand why you would show it would make more sense to fly over the south pole on a flat earth with the antarctic in the center but they don't so the earth must be flat with Antarctica as the edges? I mean I guess you right that flat earth is antarctic in the center does not make sense but we are debating about a globe VS flat earth not flat Vs flat earth.

    "It is one of the most compelling arguments which convinced me into a flat Earth (and I must say thanks to Edl for waking me up) [16]. According to the globe Earth model, this should be impossible, and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon. However, this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true [17]. We may similarly use the Toronto skyline as evidence [18]"
    It is clearly atmospheric refraction. I do however find it interesting that you chose two of the great lakes to view across perhaps the best places to see atmospheric refraction at its best

    "The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! [19] [20]"
    This feels like I have already explained this one. The earth is tilted. You are assuming the earth is not. 
    Image result for arctic circle
    Any where with in the artic circle or (atmospheric refraction) a little out can experience a mid night sun. Sense the earth is tilted at some time of the year the entire artic circle is always facing the sun for days or not facing the sun for days.

    I will try to get started on disproving all 200 hundred proofs the earth is flat. : )

    qipwbdeoErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaGooberryPogue
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    *Sigh*

    The OP hasn't constructed the opening post correctly and put forward an actual motion along the lines of "The Earth is spherical" which people can then be either 'for' or 'against'. As it stands it looks like people who think the Earth is spherical and those who think the earth is flat are both using 'For', so as it's 2 (soon to be 3) spherical earth advocates using it versus 1 flat earther, I suggest Flat Earthers switch to using 'Against' going forward.

    The Case For the Earth being Spherical

    The case for the earth being spherical is fairly clear. We know it is round. People circumnavigate the globe. We have satellites orbiting it. People have taken pictures from space. For thousands of years people have not only been conducting experiments (Strabo's observations at sea, Foulcalts pendulum, our accrate model driven predictions of when eclipses will occur, etc) and we have consistently seen the earth is round.

    It seems a moot point wasting time covering this when the evidence is so overwhelming - everyone who can watch a sunset and sea the sun disappear below the horizon rather than slowly shrinking to nothing can sea the earth is spherical. Instead I'll focus on showing the logical fallacies, baseless claims and outright lies of the Flat Earth side.

    The Rebuttal - SIlverishGoldNova

    Overall, before I get into specifics, I will note that while SilverishGoldNova tries to present a professional appearance to his argument, the actual content of his argument is very amateurish. He will make some statement which - if it were true - would turn our world upside down and which has a little number to show that there's some evidence that supposedly supports it, but then if you actually check it his evidence to support it will be a poorly thought out drawing in MSPaint.

    The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of luids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense [1] [2]. Water has also been proven to be undeniably flat, many, many times. One such example would be in this video [3].

    Flat and level level surfaces of water as Silverish imagines them do not exist.



    Ultimately there will be a curve, although at the very small close to the surface level in which we live the amount of curvature in a glass of water or a pond or a lake will be unnoticeable.

    However by observation from everything from how objects disappear over the horizon to satellites from space to GPS the physical measrurements people have made as they've traversed the earth we know it is curved.

    Silverish makes the claims "If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different!" but I have no idea why he would think this and his claims seems incompatible with modern physics.

    Refuting his sources one at a time:

    1) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BzGVw13HCD8/Vb-BpzCCjXI/AAAAAAAAP7E/hN8mSGTv19k/s1600/water-level-flat-earth.jpg - Irrelevant. He admits later on in the post that we would only expect to see curvature from a height of over 35,000 feet (and in fact he misses out the appropriate qualifiers). By his own standards that he accepts, this is therefore irrelevant as we would not expect to detect the curvature under these circumstances.

    2) https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_9688.jpeg?w=474 - This is just random unsupported claims with no evidence, but in picture form. No evidenciary value so can be ignored.

    3) - Supports a spherical earth. The sun clearly goes below the horizon. If the Earth was flat it would be unable to do this. As it could not be lower than the earth from one POV while be higher than the earth from another (e.g. we know that Sunset is London is high noon in parts of the USA)


    There are many flight patterns that, while they make absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth, make sense on a flat Earth. First off, looking at Antarctica, we know none of these flight patterns exist [4]. We know these are impossible on a flat Earth (especially if you have seen a flat Earth map) [5], but are possible on a globe Earth and infact, would result in shorter flight times. We are often told these flights do not exist because it is too cold. However, we are also told we have sent probes to outer space, which is MUCH more frigid. It is more of an excuse than an explanation.


    Some of these flights DO exist. For instance one of his connections in source four is from Buenos Aires to New Zealand. We can see planes make this flight https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Air+New+Zealand+30&oq=Air+New+Zealand+30&aqs=chrome..69i57.462j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Silverish has therefore conceded the argument as he states "We know these are impossible on a flat Earth". As we know at least one of these actually happens and it happening is impossible on a flat earth, by Silverish's logic the earth cannot be flat.

    For those that don't exist, you'll note that at least one connection is to an incredibly unpopulated area like the Southern tip of South America, Western Australia which is largely desert, etc and where we would not expect there to be major international flights.

    Source 5 is just a random picture of what flat earthers think, not actual evidence, and can therefore be discarded.

    [6] [7] Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth. 


    He provides no reason why these flights would be impossible. On a spherical earth you can fly from any one point to any other point. There may be reasons you choose not to, but there is no logical reason that I can see or that Silverish has actually offered to support his claims that this would be impossible to fly from Johannasburg to Sao Paulo on a spherical earth.

    You will also note that, again, direct flights that don't go through London DO in fact exist for both routes:

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=192BWsvsDsvIgAaOxIaYDQ&q=South+African+280&oq=South+African+280&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l3.40040.40040.0.40473.1.1.0.0.0.0.69.69.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.68....0.sKdIxKJ--pQ
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=AN6BWsnFJ6XfgAbxtJG4Dw&q=South+African+222&oq=South+African+222&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.74041.74041.0.74798.1.1.0.0.0.0.60.60.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.59....0.1JnEw7et7CY

    Now many flights will stop at London or other major centres for air travel, but this is due to economic and logistics concerns. Simply put, a lot of places don't have enough commuters that you can afford to have them all travel there directly. Instead they go to a major air hub and then get a connecting  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_hub ;

    We are widely told we can see curvature at a height of around 35K Feet, the typical range where airplanes typically fly at. There have been reports of seeing curvature outside of an airplane window, but this has been debunked many times before. The curved glass of an airplane window will distort curvature [8]. We also have images showing no curvature from 80K feet, 121K feet, and 317K Feet [9] [10].

    The actual rule is that we need a clear horizon, a wide field of view and will need to centre the horizon in your camera and then we will be able to see curvature - but Silverish omits this.

    Centreing the horizon in the middle is important due to how light refracts on lenses and causes distortion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)#Radial_distortion



    This distortion is a measurable and expected feature of basically every lense in existence. Barrel distortion is the norm and means that straight lines below the centre of the lense will have the middle curved downwards (hence making a curved horizon look straight) and those above the centre of the lense will have the middle curve upwards making a curved horizon look even more curved. You will typically see every single flat earther image is below the centre of the frame. When we take pictures where the horizon is in the centre and from a large height with a clear view, you see the expected curvature which would be impossible on a flat earth.



    Let's have a look at the 'evidence' he has supplied.

    Having 

    [8] - Nothing, he did not actually supply evidence for this at all.

    [9] - https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMJEGjMR9YUv8g6cT5mVrbOCpYi2AtKa1Ty4gFdkRsDueZHhZPWDnMZv6NFP3nXPg?key=TFQwb2ZDOVlwOTZ1MWJraThnSHI4ZjNwRDlfeWpR - Pictures with lines drawn on them with no explanation. Does not actually make any claims or have any point.

    [10] - http://i.imgur.com/VyLNeGa.jpg - A picture which to my eye shows curvature even though it is below the centre of the horizon but as it's so cloudy it's hard to see exactly where the horizon is.

    No evidence to support his claims at all.

    Many images allegedly showing curvature from similar heights have been shown to simply be hoaxes, or were blatantly recorded using a fish eye lense. Heres a humoruous example [11].

    [11] https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOBHWKzpDKBew5j94MHx335hYJz5pgjbeTqVVMG3_VknYDtJwjbCA4TGxpmSKp_PQ?key=ZVZEbEZmQVExVndzRjdvQnVzTXA4YW95VnZSTzVn

    He is meant to be showing images which are faked, but he instead shows images that he thinks are real. Neither of them meets the required standard with both of them having the horizon below the centre of the image and one having an especially restricted view as well.

    As it also is referenced here even though he doesn't link the source, I'll also respond to 12 - https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24909797_201115210456444_6871387145744944406_n.jpg?oh=960f7db1365321e123a6c18b17b96d15&oe=5ACB6327 - here. That is not a fisheye lense. As shown above, all lenses have distortion distortion.

    We have also caught NASA admitting to faking images. "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17". If you read further, we also have them saying that they stitched a "flat map" collected with satelite data onto a ball. Interesting [12]. Not only this, but there are videos throughouly debunking the 2 images they just don't wanna admit are fake, as throughougly as my debunking of the rest of "photographic evidence" [13] [14] [15].

    The first outright lie rather than poor reasoning or lack of evidence.

    As per his own source 13 (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html), NASA specifically explains how they took images of an earth when they didn't have satellites or shuttles far enough away to do so. Similar to how a google street view is several photos stitched together to give a complete 360 view, several photos from satellites orbiting earth but not orbiting it far enough away to see an entire hemisphere were stitched together. It is not a lie because they have clearly explained how they have done it and it is a method which would allow for an accurate representation of the Earth's shape.

    I'm not sure why he links 12 (scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24909797_201115210456444_6871387145744944406_n.jpg?oh=960f7db1365321e123a6c18b17b96d15&oe=5ACB6327) as it applies more to him than any other poster I have seen. he has posted multiple images where the curvature (or lack thereof) is not present but would be accounted for by the positioning of the horizon below the centre of the frame. He is making exactly the kind of error he expects others to make.

    [14]. youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8wYukRsdQ - Africa, the Saudi Arabian Region, Antarctica and the Indian Ocean are all illuminated. According to the source the video uses, all those regions should have been illuminated at the time the date was taken which shows the photo is accurate. Then, showing poor spatial reasoning, the YouTuber has an issue because the actual 3d placement of shapes does not match a 2d projection. THis distirtion is expected because you cannot accurately represent the surface of a sphere in two dimensions without getting fractal. It's a well known and basic fact of maps. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection#Distortion ; or (for an entertaining example) Silverish shows his poor spacial reasoning by believing this argument.

    [15]. youtube.com/watch?v=knaW-GxMDXw - A video of someone making unsupported claims which can therefore be rejected as simply owning video editing software do not make baseless claims factual.

    It is one of the most compelling arguments which convinced me into a flat Earth (and I must say thanks to Edl for waking me up) [16]. According to the globe Earth model, this should be impossible, and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon. However, this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true [17]. We may similarly use the Toronto skyline as evidence [18]

    False. According to the globe earth model, this is exactly what we'd expect. As shown time and time again and something you can even practice at home, light refracts when it passes through materials of a different density gradient - it only travels in a straight line in a vacuum or when moving through a consistent surface:



    Now the atmosphere has a density gradient, with the air getting thinner the higher you go (e.g. people struggling to breath on mountains). We would therefore expect it to curve, so exactly as predicted it extends the amount people can view.

    You can see another explanation here: http://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage



    [18] 

    Points 16 and 18 therefore match what would be expected in a globe earth and point 17 is just a random image with no real relevance.

    The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! [19] [20]


    [20] 

    Silverish offers evidence that the midnight sun happens, but no evidence that it cannot happen on a globe earth beyond baseless claims. In fact this is just more poor spatial reasoning on his part - it's fairly obvious that it could if you think about it:

    If the Earth is tilted on it's axis, of course you could have 24+hours of sunshine. As visualised in this example, the entire Antarctic region would have sunshine as the earth rotates which is what is experienced in reality.

    i. If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model. [21]

    ii. Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in. [22]


    [22] http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QrxmcIQ3WJo/Vb-UvFvDurI/AAAAAAAAQDE/iwOMM8aL4co/s1600/star-circles.jpg

    Once again Silverish offers no proof of his claims. His only evidence being two images of ideas of how he thinks the earth should look. his claims about how on a globed earth the Southern Cross should be visible from everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere simultaneously but isn't? Completely unsubstantiated with nothing to back it up, so there's nothing for me to rebutt.

    As for his images of how he thinks stars work, we can see through basic observation that he is wrong. According to his pictures, people on the "outside" of the equatour" who look "out" towards the giant ice wall of Antarctica (or to us, people looking south) will see stars moving horizontally, parallel to the horizon. In fact we can see that in reality they rotate around a central point like they do at the North Pole - exactly as would be expected of the Earth was an orb spinning on its axis which cuts through the North and South Poles: See and  and countless others.

    The evidence for a Spherical Earth is clear. The only things to the contrary you'll hear are baseless claims and made up facts from Flat Earthers.
    qipwbdeoPogueGooberry
  • Round 1 | Position: For

    To make sure there is no dishonest misrepresentation of what the scientific method is, we should probably start with the question, and start formulating testable experiments that allow various topologies and geometries to be discounted. From here we can rapidly narrow down to one or two geometries, then can select the geometry that best fits the evidence and experiments.


    That’s #science.


    So let’s start off with the basics. We’re talking about geometry, so we can determine the geometry of the earth we are standing on by attempting to determine a single property:


    What is our orientation compared to all other observers.


    If up is the same for all observers, the earth is flat. If there are six different “ups” that are all 90 degrees different from any other: the earth is a cube, if the change in orientation for any observer is directly linearly proportional to distance, the earth is a sphere.


    So; a way to scientifically prove the geometry of the earth is by finding a test that allows us to determine the orientation of all observers.


    #StillScience


    The best way of confirming the orientation is to have each observer measure the position of an object multiple observers can see at the same time. 


    You can do this with the sun, the moon or stars.


    Their observed location will be a product of where they actually are, combined with the observers orientation. The latter is what we are attempting to determine.


    If you make a number of measurements; you will see something interesting:

    No matter where you are, or what location you are, if two observers are 69 miles apart, in any direction, the sun, the moon, or the stars will be in exactly 1 degree different positions in the sky.


    On a flat surface this isn’t possible. As the object and each observer should form a triangle. Tan(o/a) shows that has you get further away from the object on the earths surface, the amount the angle changes decreases: ie: if you move 70 miles, you will have a bigger change in perceived angle if you are closest to the object than if you are 5000 miles away.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SB3x7jZIOdE

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GWdIRsaIqc8


    While this effectively means that observers must be orientated 360 degrees in 3 dimensions. While this could be described by a football type geometry or a geodesic with many sides: as we’ve never seen any form of ridge these can all be discounted.


    So geometrically; this proves the earth is a sphere, as these measurements are not consistent with the geometry of a flat surface.


    So, now we can get into the realm of confirmations, this takes the form of measurements that are consistent with the earth being a sphere. We should see most observations being consistent with a the earth being a sphere, and a flat earth. Consistence here is based on geometry only without additional explanations or theories added.



    So let’s go through them: (I’m assuming people know how to use google: every thing on the list below can be confirmed with a quick google search).


    1.) all other planets appear to be spheres. If any of the other planets appeared flat, the idea that the earth were flat would be more plausible.

    https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/most-incredible-pictures-every-planet-our-solar-system#page-2


    2.) the sun appears to set for all observers on the earth. The times and nature is consistent with a spherical earth, but not flat.

    https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/


    3.) There is a horizon for all observers, that objects appear to fall over, and tall buildings are obscured by. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and not with a flat earth.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Shiphorp.jpg


    4.) the sun moves at a constant rate through the sky. This is consistent with the earth being a rotating sphere, and inconsistent with the earth being flat, and the sun rotating overhead. This is the principle of how sundials work:


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3B7KLstUZbI


    5.) the sunset is at locations inconsistent with a flat earth and consistent with a sphere: at the horizon on the equinox, the sun rises due east and sets due west. On a flat earth, as described by flat earthers, the sun would be north east and north west respectively.


    https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_AQv6FS1ueA


    6.) the regions of earth that have daylight are consistent with a spherical earth: with a straight edged terminator.when the map of the earth is flattened, the regions of daylight and nighttime make no sense when the earth is flat, as some night time areas would be closer to the Sun than areas of day time. In addition on a flat earth, even a close sun would be higher over the horizon at all times due to perspective, meaning all parts of the world would be within line of sight of the sun.

    http://www.nmsr.org/flatter.htm



    7.) lunar eclipses are always round: never a line, no matter when or where they occur. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and inconsistent with a flat earth.


    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-i_aVMk46EVda7ft_E1DobvUjp0mAJ0jKtL6QsXeR0PWK_590


    8.) pictures of earth, as a sphere, from space have been provided by multiple space agencies and governments hostile to each other, and a number of private organizations.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyEzsAy4qeU


    9.) GPS satellite technology has been developed that is based off satellite signals being received in the sphere. Hundreds of disparate companies are involved with the development of the satellite, commercial GPS chips, test equipment for validating them, etc: and gps is confirmed to work in the ocean, in the desert and in the arctic. This is not consistent with a flat earth, and is consistent with a spherical earth.


    https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/communications/policy/GPS_History.html


    10.) Gravity is measured to be stronger North/south by an amount consistent with gravity being cancelled out by the centripetal force at the equator more than at the poles. 


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/94-does-your-weight-change-between-the-poles-and-the-equator-intermediate


    11.) Gravity would prevent the earth being flat, and requires it to be a sphere. This is also provides consistent explanations for the formation of the earth, and why all other planets are spheres.


    http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Space_sensations/Why_are_things_in_space_the_shape_that_they_are


    12.) the distance you can see and the objects you can observe are related to how high up you are, this is consistent with a spherical earth and not a flat earth where you would have consistent depth of view with objects in the way the only limiting factor other than this.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon


    13.) when using a device (a pendulum or gyroscope) with sufficiently low friction, the change they exhibit appears consistent with a rotating earth.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b14l3-A8iUQ

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuBSprsDA8


    14.) lunar eclipses can happen, which are inconsistent with a flat earth.


    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_eclipse_oct_8_2014_Minneapolis_4_46am.png


    15.) multiple dozens of companies in multiple countries develop and use satellites, including television, communications, satellite phones and have done since the days of Telstar.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communication_satellite_companies


    16.) we can observe satellites like the ISS, and others passing behind the shadow of the earth on a daily basis.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yHt28UbaR2I

    http://www.neatorama.com/2011/02/28/space-shuttle-docking-with-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/


    17.) the stars rotate in different directions in the north and south, and appear to be moving in a straight line at the equator. This is perfectly consistent with a spherical earth.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nam90gorcPs

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UNiNJC3UHIo


    In addition it’s worth covering the observations that are not consistent with a curved earth.


    1.) There is always a horizon, but objects that should be a little beyond the horizon are sometimes visible.


    2.) lunar eclipses are sometimes visible when the moon and sun are both visible to an observer.


    3.) at short distances the earth appears flat.



    (1) and (2) are not evidence of a flat earth, as they could also explained by other geometries (such as parts of the earth being flatter than others, or the globe being larger than thought.


    (3) is not inconsistent with a spherical earth that is large, as any curvature or racing away of the earth would be nearly inperceptible and difficult to measure accurately.



    (1) is explained by measurable effects: the atmosphere can bend light as warm humid air and cold air have different refractive indexes, as this ends up curving light by small amounts. Measurements of air and snells law of refraction make this apparent. This is also a consistent explanation as these locations that are visible are only visible in specific conditions, and non predictable times; rather than all the time.


    (2), as with 1; knowns properties of air, and known laws of physics allows us to determine that the position of the sun and moon would be raised due to refraction; happily explaining this geometry.


    So, let’s compare the explanations side by side to which explanation best fits the facts.


    Either 


    • the earth is a sphere; and
    • Refraction works the way establishes science implies it should


    Or (given what I understand listening to flat earthers)


    • the earth is flat. And
    • Every single picture of earth has been faked. And
    • Millions if not tens of millions who work in satellite communication, technology, GPS and the space industry are engaged in a massive global conspiracy AND
    • Multiple hostile governments have colluded to cover up the truth, over 60 years, and
    • Images have been faked since the late 1940s, in some cases with images far more advanced than the apparent technology to fake at the time, and
    • Not a single piece of documentary evidence consistent with this global cover up has ever been released or distributed. And
    • Despite multiple millions of individuals over many decades needing to have knowledge of the conspiracy, no credible whistleblower has come forward and
    • A team of individuals are constantly recruited to engage in cgi and photoshop and other fakery without anyone being tipped off and
    • There is some other process that by fluke of coincidence shifts the apparent position of the sun, the moon in just the right way that they appear to match the expected position they would be if viewed upon a sphere and
    • There is an additional rahu around the earth that by fluke of coincidence makes it appear as if there is a lunar eclipse in just the right way to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown force that moves the sun and moon around that no one has ever been able to measure and coincidentally moves the sun and moon in a way that exactly matches the way it should move on a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown reason by which the stars appear to rotate in different directions in a way that is coincidentally identical to how it should appear on a spherical earth. And
    • There is a team of people faking satellites with planes or other objects that have never been spotted taking off, refueling, etc. And
    • Some unknown force causes Foucault Pendulums and precision low friction gyroscopes appear to precess at just the right amount to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • Some unknown reason or force causes the measured weight/gravity to be different at the poles vs the equator by exactly the right amount to be consistent with the force of gravity being cancelled out by the force generated by earths rotation. And
    • Some atmospheric phenomena exists that matches the behaviour of objects appearing to fall over a horizon in exactly the way expected on a spherical earth.
    • Some mechanisms exists that causes the distance you can see to be proportional to the height of objects rather than obstructed perspective.



    It’s pretty clear here that the idea of that multiple coincidental process all “just so happen” to conspire to make the world look as if it’s spherical strains credulity.


    Most importantly: as there are multiple unknowns that would have to be assumed to exist; as well as multiple coincidences that conspire, it’s clear that flat earth fails Occam’s razor by a massive gulf; and thus a spherical earth most clearly and self evidently matches all the observations concisely, and with the fewest assumptions.


    So as a result; actually applying the scientific method; flat earth absolutely fails to meet even the most basic scientific standard.


    Indeed, it is not clear how anyone can think it is a scientific position given the number of unknowns, coincidences and unexplainable happenstance is necessary for it to be true.


    #YepStillScience.













    Pogue
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    Due to an unexpectedfamily emergency, I'm unable to continue the debate at this time. @silverishgoldnova has spent a lot of time on this debate with the rebuttals, but I can't ask him to take on 4 or more competitors at a time. I will reschedule when I have more time to work on these long and tedious rebuttals.




    SilverishGoldNovasomeone234PogueLibertineStates
    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.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 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