Flat Earth

Thanks for another round, and thanks to any voters reading. I'll finally rebut my opponent's round two arguments, and rebut his rebuttals. Gyroscopes "Basically, what happens is that the gyroscope"s angular momentum vector changes depending where on earth you stand: when you look at the angle in between the gyroscope"s angular momentum vector and the earth"s, it is always the latitude where the gyroscope is located." Not really sure what my opponent means by this exactly. My opponent offers a study to attempt to seemingly back his claim that gyros do in fact rotate against the earth's spin, I think... but then he claims that the gyroscope must be of superior quality to be able to detect the earths spin. While at the same time, quoting a random person on a blog claiming : " Foucault demonstrated the turning of the earth under his pendulum in Paris quite convincingly over a long enough time and the gyro's apparent precession were the same in rate and direction. " Foucault actually invented the gyroscope. It consisted of a children's top mounted on gimbals. To say that the quality of gyros has DECREASED since 1851 is an asinine statement. I'm not sure exactly what my opponent's angle is with this refutation, but I see two logical fallacies now. The appeal to authority is apparent in his claim that the gyros that can respond to the earths rotation are not available to the public, and since he offers no valid experiment showing this to happen at all, we should dismiss his claim: "A good quality gyroscope would process due to earth"s rotation" The second fallacy is special pleading. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent completely ignored the attitude indicators argument. If a plane were flying against the spin of the earth, the gyro would roll back that much more. No curvature "That picture is a picture of a mirage" My opponent is accepting the mainstream explanation of this water not curving as it should if the earth were a spinning ball. He, like the rest of the world, has not been taught much about mirages, obviously. This joint university study states that mirages are ALWAYS INVERTED. http://aty.sdsu.edu... "Don't confuse image inversion (i.e., something appearing upside down " the common property of all mirages) with the thermal inversion (an atmospheric structure) that produces mock mirages and superior mirages." " During different times of the day, you won"t be able to see the Chicago skyline from that point. " Yes, this was discussed in the opening round. During different times of the day you can't see across a 2-3 mile wide lake. This is again due to atmosphere, which is heavy over water. http://il6.picdn.net... As I've stated, the skyline IS seen on a regular basis, https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com... and this not the only example of this, there are literally dozens of these tests to find the earths curvature all over YouTube, none finding any curvature. More on this later. This should be a smoking gun for anyone who abides by the scientific method. 1915 radio My opponent assumes propagation was used to bounce the signal off of the ionosphere. The discovery of bouncing waves around the globe was first accredited to amateur radio users in 1920. The technique was just being perfected in terms of which frequencies to use and how well they performed at different times of day. Also, in the article, the transmission was simultaneously received in a different direction a different distance away, this is a red flag, since these angles would be different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Another article on the 1915 broadcasts states: "The human voice was carried 4,500 miles with nothing but the vibrations of the air as a conductor. " http://earlyradiohistory.us... Orientation of the moon Con contests that the moon is not close, and reinstated his assertion that it is still proof of a globular earth. Same thought experiment on a larger scale will produce the same results. This only proves that the moon is between the 2 observers. Which holds true for both models. Since the distance to the moon is irrelevant to this experiment, and would require another debate altogether, I won't spend too much time on this, but I will mention some evidence of a close moon. Clouds seen behind the moon. Several instances are being recorded where clouds appear to go behind the moon. Yes I realize that the moon can shine through clouds, especially thin clouds. However some instances show very thick, dark clouds doing this. https://youtu.be... Cloud illumination. As seen in my profile pic, a close light source illuminates things locally. Observations on nights where the clouds are high, or closer to the moon show this local illumination on clouds. https://youtu.be... Tycho crater. A crater named after a famous geocentric astronomer is about 51 miles in diameter is clearly discernible from earth, yet photographs from the moon looking at the earth show very little details, let alone any 50 mile structures. Use Google earth and situate the camera above Long Island, which is about twice as long as the crater is big. Now slowly zoom out with the camera. Long Island will disappear long before you reach the 250,000 mile mark. Go look at the pictures of earth supposedly taken from the moon, see if you can make out the Great Lakes. http://media.treehugger.com... Coriolis "I agree to dismissing this point and that this was a bad point on my part, but the point still stands that hurricanes go clockwise in the northern Hemisphere and counter clock-wise in the southern hemisphere." My opponent agrees that we were subjected to a bit of indoctrination which we can prove wrong now. Though he still believes that hurricanes spin different ways because of the Earth's axial rotation. He has yet to give a logical explanation for why this happens, and anyone with any knowledge whatsoever in aerodynamics, will agree that this simply does not happen. I wish him good luck in finding a better explanation for this to happen than what I gave, because as far as I can see this proof of his stands refuted, and I consider this to be a proof more of a flat Earth than a spherical spinning ball. Our observations match the fact that the air is moving over the Earth independently and has no indication that the Earth is moving at all. I see logical fallacies: " I don't see why I would need to provide..." "There is likely a scientific explanation for that" " I slightly recall learning... "you could look it up..." and even his own:" It's kind of a red herring to point out that the deflection differs in the southern and northern hemispheres..." Though I may have turned the proof around on him, he in fact, brought up the coriolis effect. My explanation in the last round is in my opinion a more logical reason for this to happen, despite my opponent's rejection. My opponent ignores the argument about the earth spinning under ANYTHING else like balloons, or planes. https://youtu.be... http://favim.com... Ships over the horizon I didn't fail to see that refraction was happening. I did fail to see how it proves that ships go over the horizon. Since my opponent is not arguing for a spherical earth, (is he a hollow earther?) this evidence is a red herring. We also see from these videos that light is bent up, instead of down, as if we were seeing over curvature. He fails to notice that at 0% zoom, the ship has completely disappeared due to PERSPECTIVE, zooming in brings the ship back into view from the top down, and small swells periodically hide the lower most portions of the ship. https://youtu.be... Telescopes https://www.google.com... My opponent still doesn't understand perspective or atmospheric blocking, which doesn't surprise me, not a lot of time was spend on either in science class. On a flat earth, someone from ground level will never, ever see forever, even with a decent telescope or camera, everything either shrinks to nothing, or gets blocked by water in the air, or refracted, these are empirical observations. In every instance the required curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference is tested, it is not found. What is found is plenty of refraction, perspective and atmospheric blockage, or a combination of any. There are plenty. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... http://bfy.tw... The problem with time zones Yes the sun would be revolving around a point IN THE EARTHS ATMOSPHERE in the flat earth model. So technically geocentric is not the correct term, but this is mere semantics and will be ignored. The point is, we're not rocketing (understatement) around the universe at 1,000 miles per second as modern science tells us at birth. "You do realize that railroad tracks..." Yes, this is perspective, which I have a very firm grasp on, not that I've researched it for over a year. Railroad tracks are receding parallel lines. CrepUscular rays are seen at their proper angle, unless they are receding away from the observer. The obvious differences can be seen here. https://c1.staticflickr.com... http://farm8.staticflickr.com... "Math is concrete and never wrong, unless done incorrectly with human error." What math was done that isn't subject to human error? Can humans miss some vital factor, possibly undetectable? Computers are designed and programmed by humans. To rely on theories and equations to explain the world around you and ignore your senses and logical critical thinking is asinine.