The earth is spherical and spinning

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. Gravity. 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. Falsifiability. 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. .. Mauritius. 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. Gyrocompass. 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. Summary 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.