Flat Earth

Alright, this first part is rebuttals to the parts I couldn't rebut previously, from round 3. Time ZonesI find it odd that you say atmosphere, since that would imply a sphere, but I’ll ignore that. Alright, if you’re going to claim that the sun is revolving around a point in the Earth’s atmosphere, that would need proof. I won’t just let you claim it is doing that without providing evidence that it is. I also proved that the sun is further away already and you didn't provide reason to reject my claim, you just offered your own evidence that it's closer, but I offered an alternative explanation of the crepuscular rays.Until you do that, this point about the time zone I made still stands.Also, I just realized, if you are saying the sun is revolving around the earth in a parralel circle to the equator, then it should still be visible to people on the other side of the earth. Take a look at this flat earth model[23]. If the sun is above, say, South America, it is shining light in all directions and it would be visible to people in Australia(it would just be at a different angle). The only way to account for that is if you claim the sun doesn't shine light in all directions... in which case does that mean you believe the sun is flat too? In addition, if the sun is this close to the earth and is that small, one should not be able to see the sun from other planets. However, as a google image search of "sun from mars" comes up with, you can see it from Mars. Maybe my opponent will reject those pictures, but if they do, hopefully they have a good reason for why this is a lie. People need a reason to lie, what is the motive?Crepuscular rays:I find the pictures my opponent offered suspect, as it seems majority of images you look for on google of crepuscular rays don’t show them converging at the same degree as the pictures in my opponent’s argument. See here [20] They don’t converge as soon as the ones in my opponent’s pictures. Nonetheless, I offered an explanation for why crepuscular rays occur, and why they don’t prove the sun is much closer necessarily. Now, onto the new arguments:Gyroscopes:Videos can be altered, and as I said before, higher quality gyroscopes are able to precess. And no, I didn't ignore that "fallacy" I already explained why it wasn't a fallacy. You didn't offer any explanation as to why it is a fallacy, and I showed that it's not a fallacy with what I said previously. Now, the reason why cheap gyroscopes don't move all around due to earth spinning, earth moving around the sun, and our galaxy moving, is because items tend not to change in motion. It's one of the rules of physics. It's why when you throw a ball while moving, the ball will typically come back down close enough to where you can pick it up, even though you were moving. Cheap gyroscopes still act in this manner, and so you can't detect the earth moving through them. However, as my study showed, more advanced gyroscopes can detect the earth moving. My opponent seems to think it's okay to just dismiss scientific studies for some reason, without offering any studies of their own. I contend that my point still stands because it is backed up by scientific evidence, whereas my opponent has offered nothing of the sort as evidence for their claims. As for GPS, I was a little off originally, but it is confirmed still that military grade GPS systems are still better than the ones you can get from the store. So, my over all point still stands that military and scientists have higher quality items at their disposal. "As of early 2015, high-quality, FAA grade, Standard Positioning Service (SPS) GPS receivers provide horizontal accuracy of better than 3.5 meters"[21] Yet, again, you can test any GPS you get from the store, and they're not within 3.5 meters, more like ten times that. And again, you claim things are fallacious without even arguing for how they are. No curvatureI was clearly not sure if that quote was saying what I thought it was, you don't need to be so harsh about this. I didn't state it with complete confidence and I wanted clarification. Alright, I decided to look up an explanation for this, and there is just too much for me to post here with the character limits, as it would take up the rest of my argument if I did, so I will just link to an explanation for Chicago being visible. It has to do with a number of things, such as the height of the observer, as I brought up before, the thermal inversion, and light refraction, when accounting for all of this, it is possible to see various different amounts of the buildings during different times of the day. The variable that make a huge difference is the light refraction. We know light refraction is occuring because when you look at Willis tower in that picture, it is stretched out to an insane amount. Look at a picture of willis tower closer up, and the picture my opponent offered(if you don't want to look pictures up, source 22 has some). You'll see that it is clearly stretched. Now, here is a source explaining with math and geometry what is going on with that picture[22]. Now, if the earth was flat, you'd be able to see all buildings from Chicago during some time during the day, but I do believe that has never happened before. For example, you should just be able to get a pair of binoculars or another zooming in device, and see more buildings on a flat earth model from where Joshua took this picture. But I know of no evidence suggesting one can. Orientation of the moonMy opponent failed to apply the orientation of the moon to their proposed flat earth model. Here is a picture of the flat earth model in my source[23]. According to that model, Australia and South America would have the orientation of the moon differently, it would be like as you see between the US and Argentina, except to an even greater degree. If this is hard to imagine, again, let's bring up my opponent's example of an arrow in a room. If you're on one side of the room, and your friend is on the other, the arrow would have a different orientation. The same would be true between Australia and South America, since they are on other sides of the earth. However, as you can read about in my previous round, the orientation is the same between Australia and South America, as well as for the entire Southern Hemisphere(for the most part). This doesn't work under a flat earth model. Thus, I was focusing on the distance of the moon because this would make it even more likely that you would have different orientations between Australia and South America, because of how far away it is. However, you don't see this. Coriolis EffectNo, that doesn't explain the spinning of the hurricane to begin with though, all the perspective changes is what direction the hurricane's spin. It doesn't explain why it's spinning to begin with. It's due to the coriolis effect, and it's been proven scientifically many times this is the case. Also, if you look at the previous picture I had for the coriolis effect, you'll see that near the equator, the wind patterns are actually going in the same direction, it changes as you go further from the equator which is due to the clockwise and counter-clockwise deflection. I was ignoring your explanation because I already proved the distance of the sun and moon. This explanation you offered is completely dependent on that the moon and sun are close to the earth. Since I refuted that(and that's why I focused so much on this, because I knew your explanations of things would be due to the sun and moon being close to the earth) this means you now have no explanation for the coriolis effect, and it still doesn't make sense under a motionless, flat earth model. ShipsYou can't just keep zooming in on a ship and make it re-appear indefinitely though, as I said before. It eventually completely escapes your view even with zooming in. Now, you claimed that we never have the right conditions to always be able to see the ship, but I don't buy that. That seems to be a convenient excuse, and I'm sure that at some point, there wouldn't be atmospheric blockage, etc. Even that video of Chicago shows there's not always atmospheric blockage, as sometimes you can see Chicago, and other times you can't. Why I believe I wonI focused on ideas that anyone can confirm, such as the orientation of the moon being different between the hemispheres. Under a flat earth model, this doesn't make sense. Then I brought up the coriolis effect, which shouldn't exist under a flat earth model at all, my opponent brought up a theory on how the sun and moon would be close and causing this pull, but I refuted the ideas that they are close and proved that they are far away in previous rounds, and my opponent has not directly refuted the evidence provided as of yet. The arguments they brought up regarding to Nowicki's photos have other explanations for them, as provided this round, though maybe my opponent will refute them. While I conceded two things: that I was wrong about the toilet's flush, and the video is fish eye lens, the former didn't effect my main point for the coriolis effect, and the latter doesn't matter as much since I offered many other evidences that the earth is globular. Plus, I offered much more evidence than my opponent did, where they only made three main arguments: gyroscopes, curvature, and 1915 radio, which my opponent still hasn't refuted my points on yet, but maybe they were waiting till this round. I, on the other hand, had 6 evidences.Sources:[20] https://www.google.com... [21] https://en.wikipedia.org...[22] https://www.quora.com...[23] https://wiki.tfes.org...