Flat Earth

I'll just give a quick recap on what has been discussed so far, and give any rebuttals as I go. Gyroscopes My opponent seems to be confused. I offer a video experiment showing how gyroscopes do not move at all, much less as he claims they should. He also never responded to the idea that not only are we spinning, we fly around the sun while doing so, while the sun bolts around our galaxy, and that galaxy rockets around the universe at a combined speed of almost 1,000 miles per second. Unless that universe were 2 dimensional, and all of these orbits would be in the same direction so as the earth NEVER changes orientation, my opponent agrees that gyroscopes would precess in all matter of directions rendering it useless, both on planes and in everyday life. He then ignores his own fallacy of quoting a random blogger claiming that Focault demonstrated "the gyro's apparent precession were the same in rate and direction" and later denies having done so. Foucault Pendulums are in major institutions and serve as a popular attraction the world over. If gyroscopes actually did this, as the "study" claims, someone, somewhere would have recorded this precession. My opponent ignores this fact and stands by his study. He denies his special pleading, saying that he in fact has never claimed anything about gyroscopes, so his rebuttal of " The gyro does "roll back" or precess." not only is unfounded, but denied by himself. The fact that I've offered proof that gyroscopes don't precess, and he offers only a study saying they should, further strengthens my point. He moves the goalposts to an infinite point by saying that the public does not have acces to the instrumentation to verify this, and offers no empirical proof that they do so. This should be easy to do. His GPS argument is also fallacious, and largely irrelevant to the conclusion. He is claiming that GPS is capable of aiming a missile through a window... Moving on. No curvature My opponent is cherry picking a quote HE thinks supports his stance on mirages, even after I pointed out a note in the article explaining plainly, that THERMAL INVERSION SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH IMAGE INVERSION. My opponent should read the article, and specifically the side note again, because he clearly did not read it correctly. Thermal inversion is just a layer of one extreme temperature on top or under an extreme opposite temperature. He backs up his defense by claiming that it is NOT a mirage anymore, and the sight was seen because of the observers high elevation. Claiming that somehow, Mr Joshua Nowicki found a 300 foot high dune in a park where the highest dune is 180 feet, add 6 feet to account for the observers height, unless my opponent wants to continue special pleading and say the observer could have been on a 120 foot step ladder. Using that number in the curvature calculator, we see that Chicago should be about 1082' below the curvature of the earth, or 330 meters. https://books.google.com... (Pg 32) From Wikipedia the 5th tallest building in Chicago is about 300 meters high, including the poles on top. So, if we were seeing the tops of two to three of these buildings, my opponent's rebuttal would seem reasonable, but in fact we can make out about 40 buildings, most should be well hidden under the curvature. It is important to remember that though this is the most famous of these occurrences happening, there are countless other examples, some with much further distances being sighted. One need only know how to use Google to see this themselves, or a body of water and a decent camera, binos, or a telescope. Orientation of the moon My opponent has now dropped the original argument about the orientation of the moon, and has now put his focus on the distance to the moon, failing to see how it is irrelevant. The fact stands that if a person were facing the moon in the northern hemiplane would be facing a person in the southern hemiplane, south, and a person in the south w/o be facing north. They face each other as in the experiment, and the distance of the object they look at is irrelevant. As he has dropped the original point we can conclude that orientation of the moon in opposite hemispheres is not conclusive proof that the earth is spherical. Coriolis effect. My opponent connects that the cause of the hurricanes spinning in different directions is due to an OBSERVER'S DIRECTION OF FACE, and actually has no relation to the earth being a spinning sphere. Another instance where my opponent refutes himself, or drops an argument. The reason this happens on a flat earth has been stated in a few rounds now, and my opponent apparently is ignoring this. I will quote from round 2: "Flat earth explanation: The close, small sun and moon are some sort of electromagnetic phenomenon, pushing the water in the atmosphere away from it as it travels over the equator. It's really quite beautiful" And a link providing an in depth explanation in the next round: https://m.youtube.com... And though my opponent used this as a proof of a spinning ball, it turns out that it makes no sense on a spinning ball, and the proof fits better on the flat earth model. Ships My opponent appears again to ignore the fact that zooming in on a ship will cause the ship to reappear from the top down. Any time this phenomenon is filmed, refraction and perspective comes into play at some point, and the ship is not hidden behind curvature. As I've stated before, at low altitudes, swells, which get very high on the ocean, could come between an observer and a boat, giving the illusion of curvature. Here are more examples, my opponent seems to be ignoring any valid refutations, so it will be ultimately up to the voter's discretion. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...