The earth is a ball.

Thank you Con!CircumnavigationCon writes that Earth is the center of the universe. How do you know? Next, according to Flat Earth Theory, the planet’s “edge” is the ice wall formed by Antarctica. Now, how is it possible that of the billions of people that have ever lived, there is not a single photo, video or even drawing of the supposed “edge” of the planet? If the Earth truly is flat, you’d think that people would be investing more time and energy into exposing the largest conspiracy of all time by all the governments and space agencies around the world. We don’t even hear about people claiming to have seen the edge; yet, we have people who claim they have seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and have been abducted by aliens. Imagine how much money the Flat Earth Society and religions would make if we found out the Earth is flat. If we are actually the center of the universe, this would be undeniable proof that some sort of deity exists. Lunar EclipsesI thank my opponent for his honesty in admitting he cannot explain lunar eclipses rather than trying to make up something like other debates I have seen on this topic. Fortunately, the modern world and science can explain lunar eclipses in a way that makes sense, as I described in round one.Blood MoonsYet another phenomena we have logical explanations for. “The Earth’s atmosphere can scatter sunlight, and since moonlight is just scattered sunlight, it can scatter that too. Red light can pass through the atmosphere and not get scattered much, while light at the blue end of the spectrum is more easily scattered. When you see a red moon, you’re seeing the red light that wasn’t scattered, but the blue and green light have been scattered away. That’s why the Moon looks red” [1]. This can happen when the Moon is low in the sky or during a lunar eclipse.SelenelionsWhile this used to be unexplainable, we now know how this “impossible” event occurs. “There are typically a number of high ridges undergoing sunrise or sunset that can see it. Although the moon is in the Earth’s umbra, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can both be seen at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes each of them to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position” [2].Lunar WavesMy opponent apparently believes that the Moon is fake, a projected image created by NASA and other powerful organizations to deceive billions of people. Con writes “It's hard to catch but around 7 people have filmed it over 12 times.” That’s it? The world’s biggest conspiracy of all time, and only seven people have caught it on film? I took a look at the video myself, and I am not impressed. Firstly, those effects could be replicated by anybody with a decent video editing software. Secondly, Con later writes “Atmospheric perspective is just dense, more thick air, smog, fog, heat, dust, dew, exhaust…” Perhaps those fuzzy lines are all that mass getting in the way, no? Stars, atmosphere, night and planets in the moonMy opponent speaks of a translucent moon. The video he linked to appeared to show stars appearing in dark areas of the moon. There are two logical explanations for this. First, the image of the moon was photoshopped by whoever took them. And/or second, the “stars” are actually dead pixels, little white dots on a camera’s sensor that show up in dark areas of an image upon zooming in.Lunar landings hoaxSeeing that my opponent did not share evidence that the Moon landings were supposedly faked, take a look at some of the most common arguments and why they are incredibly flawed. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;Other planetsCon writes that there are plenty of reasons that Earth is different from other objects we see in the sky, writing that the planets “... are as luminous if not more so than some stars.” This is simply because the planets (in our solar system) are so much closer to us than the stars. My opponent also states that because of the curvature of telescope lens, planets only appear spherical due to the lens distortion. Well, the moon appears just as round with a telescope as it does without a telescope, so the curvature of the lens clearly does not impact what we see. Also, our eyes are convex lenses, yet we trust them to accurately portray what is in front of us.Time zonesMy opponent states that time zones exist because the sun is not 93 million miles away, like all scientists will say. I am disappointed that Con did not provide their own distance which they believe to be more accurate. I request my opponent share how far away the sun really is and how he knows this is true. Con asks “How does the sun's heat get to the earth through all that vacuum?” Check it out. “Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat” [3]. Next, Con asks why the Moon doesn’t burn and freeze as it revolves Earth. The Moon’s temperature may change as its distance between the sun changes, but not to this extent. Besides, the Moon is covered with rocks and dust which can absorb heat.My opponent’s next proof of a flat Earth is sunrays, providing pictures that appear to prove that the sun is much closer to Earth than what they scientists say. In reality, these are called crepuscular rays. “These rays, which stream through gaps in clouds (particularly stratocumulus) or between other objects, are columns of sunlit air separated by darker cloud-shadowed regions. Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance)” [4].If the sun was this close, why has nobody ever flown a balloon to “sun-level” and captured video/pictures of it?ShipsMy opponent writes that ships disappear because of perspective; the vanishing point. This doesn’t explain why the bottom of the ship disappears first; if the Earth was flat, the entire ship would fade out of our vision, not just certain parts of it. How does my opponent explain that I can climb a cliff and “re-see” the bottom of the ship after it has disappeared? A telescope will not bring the ship back into view; only moving to a greater height will.StarsMy opponent quotes George Orwell, who wrote in his book 1984: “‘What are the stars?’ said O’Brien indifferently. ‘They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out.” A few kilometers away? Why has nobody ever tried this? Because the stars are not a few kilometers away. They are millions, billions of kilometers away. Besides, the book is a dystopian novel. It is fictional.Next my opponent says the Bible supports the flat Earth model. The Bible also says there are talking snakes. It is not a science textbook.Con states that Nicholas Tesla believed in the flat Earth. This is a poor understanding of the quote my opponent cited. The quote rather beautifully explains how everything is connected, how the universe and everything in it are one. Nowhere did he imply that the Earth is flat. Even if he did, that doesn't make it true. Stars and constellationsMy opponent writes “The fact that we see the same stars for all of recorded history is proof that they are not part of an expanding universe.” Con fails to realize that our “recorded history” only began seconds ago compared to the 13.8 billion years that the universe has been around. “Our ancestors may have recorded their view of the night sky on the walls of their cave some 17 300 years ago” [5]. We can see that millions of galaxies are moving away from us [6].Sources in the comments. Apologies; I ran out of space. I look forward to my opponent’s response!