Flat Earth

Gyroscopes "Not really sure what my opponent means by this exactly." Well, it means the gyroscope's angular momentum vector is dependent on earth's latitude. It changes to be perpindicular to it at all times, and when you compare the gyroscope's position at which it is spinning, it changes according to where on earth you are, and this indicates an earth that is spherical. When you measure the change of the gyroscope's angular momentum vector, it generally changes by the curvature of the earth. That is also what the study I offered indicates. Was that clearer? "To say that the quality of gyros has DECREASED since 1851 is an asinine statement." I didn't claim that though, so I don't see why you brought this up. This is likely a strawman argument. A straw man is "a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."[18] Find me where I specifically said that the quality of gyroscopes have decreased since 1851. I just said that the common gyroscope is not good enough quality(the very first gyroscope also wouldn't have been good enough quality, even more so since it was worse quality). Typically the military has better quality items at their disposal than the common person. For example: GPS. They have GPS that is strong enough to be able to go within inches of the desired destination, or else missiles wouldn't be able to go through windows, as they can. All you have to do to test this theory is buy a GPS and put a destination into it. You'll see that it will tell you "you have reached your destination" when you actually haven't quite yet and it's still maybe another 50 feet away. The government and scientists always have higher quality things at its disposal than the rest of us. That's a fact. "but I see two logical fallacies now..." Claiming that good quality things are not available to the public isn't an appeal to authority. For one, an appeal to authority has to be claiming something is true because an authority(and this part is important) who is not an expert in the field is claiming it. If it's an expert in the field claiming it, and you're claiming the claim is true because they say it, it's not an appeal to authority. You can read what an appeal to authority is on wikipedia[17]. Claiming that the experts in the field are the only ones with good enough gyroscopes is not an appeal to authority. As for claiming it is special pleading, I also don't think it is. For one, you'd have to have shown something I claimed to be true was false and then I would have had to change what I was claiming. This was your first argument that I was rebutting, I wasn't defending my own argument. I didn't make a claim about gyroscopes until now, so it's not moving the goalposts or special pleading because I would have needed to change what I was claiming, when I wasn't claiming anything about gyroscopes before. Again, you can look at my first round of argument. Gyroscopes are completely devoid of my arguments there. I also didn't ignore the altitude indicators argument. I already pointed out that gyroscopes would precess due to earth's spinning, and provided a scientific study on the matter. The gyro does "roll back" or precess. No curvature Here's a quote from that page my opponent linked to: " Though the basic idea — that the mirage is something like a “reflection” produced a steep thermal inversion whose top is above the observer " If I'm reading this correctly, it means the top of the image would appear above the observer, which is what you see in that Chicago skylines video and picture. The top of the buildings are above the observer. Also, if I am reading that incorrectly, then there is another explanation for this phenomena of seeing the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere state park. If Joshua was atop of a hill or elevation was otherwise higher at the spot where the picture was taken in Grand Mere State park than in Chicago, it would be very possible to see buildings even on a globular earth. Take a look at this Earth curve calculator.[19] For a distance of 57 miles, and eye level is at 5.8 feet(I chose this amount because a human would easily have their eyes at that height), 1948 feet should be invisible to you. However, if we were to change it to, say, 300 feet because you are higher up in elevation by that amount in comparison to how high chicago is, then the amount that should be invisible to you becomes 854 feet. [19] Chicago's tallest building, Willis tower, is 1450 feet, so it would be clearly visible among several other buildings in Chicago. So, we need to know at what elevation Joshua Nowicki took this photograph of the Chicago skyline in order to be able to conclude anything from it. Since you can't see the shoreline in that picture, it can be concluded that he is elevated higher. For, if he was taking that picture at a level equal to the shore line, you would be able to see the beach/shore. 1915 Radio “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.” Well, I can’t seem to read the article, as it comes up with an error when I follow that link. I figured it was a problem with how a semicolon got placed at the end, and instead typed the link out by hand without the semicolon, but it still got nowhere. I would need to read the article before I can make a comment on this. "The human voice was carried 4,500 miles with nothing but the vibrations of the air as a conductor. " Anyone could just be claiming that. This isn’t a scientific article on the matter, so it could be subject to error. Plus, I’m not sure how this excludes the radio waves bouncing off of the ionosphere argument. Additionally, I offered a plausible explanation for this. Just because they didn’t know about radio waves bouncing off of the ionosphere at that time, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Orientation of the Moon “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.” I’m not sure how my opponent thinks this refutes the evidence I provided for the moon being far away. This doesn’t seem to do anything with the lasers being bounced off of the moon, so this seems to be a non sequitur. As for the video my opponent offered, that light doesn’t even look like the moon in that video. Anyone can watch that and tell that is definitely not the moon. I know of no instance where clouds have actually moved behind the moon. This is absurd, for if that was true, then we should be able to fly the to moon with an airplane since planes can go above most clouds. I know of no one who has flown to the moon with an airplane. “A crater named after a famous geocentric astronomer is about 51 miles in diameter is clearly discernible from earth” Yet, you provided no evidence it is, such as a photograph of the moon. In fact, if you want to accept those balls of light in those previous videos as the moon, you can’t even see any craters on it. That’s why those balls of light weren’t the moon, because you can see craters on the moon from earth. Whether you can specifically see tycho crater is yet to be proven, however. We can see larger craters though. I also find it dishonest of my opponent to trust google earth, when google earth shows the earth to be spherical, so they must obviously believe this is a fabrication. I contend that since my opponent would object to google earth’s shape for the earth, that they can’t use google earth as evidence of anything without being a hypocrite. After all, if they can’t be trusted for the shape of the earth, why would they be trusted for what you can see at the distance the moon is? Either google earth is right for all of the portrayal of the earth, or it’s not right for any of it. You can’t pick and choose the parts of google earth to accept. This is cherry-picking. So, it seems my point that the orientation of the moon being different between the hemispheres still stands since I’ve proven the moon is as far as science says it is, and my opponent didn’t refute this. Coriolis I already provided evidence for the coriolis effect, see round 1. It’s a fact anyone can look up that hurricanes, wind patterns, and ocean currents have a clockwise deflection in the northern hemisphere and a counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. You’ve not offered any explanation or refutation of this, so don’t claim you have. All you’ve done was point out that my claim of toilets flushing was incorrect, but the rest of the point still stands. I already pointed out that the coriolis effect shouldn’t exist on a flat earth model and that you had no explanation for it. Now, as for why the deflection differs in the two hemispheres, thinking about it, it’s because your perspective differs in the two hemispheres, assuming the earth is a globe. In the northern hemisphere, your head would be facing in an upward direction and in the southern hemisphere, in a downward direction. Things go to the left in the southern hemisphere because of this reason, and to the right in the north because of this as well. Now, the question becomes, why does the coriolis effect exist if we live on a motionless flat earth? Ships Well, I forgot that I said in comments I would defend a globular earth, so I am going to stick to that now since I agreed to that from the beginning. Sorry, I forgot that I said that in comments. It wasn’t stated in the debates, but I’ll still argue for a globular earth. Either way, the ship shouldn’t disappear if there is no atmospheric refraction going on, you have an instrument to zoom in on the ship, etc. Sources: [17]https://en.wikipedia.org... [18]https://en.wikipedia.org... [19]https://dizzib.github.io...