The Earth is flat

1. Coriolis effect A flat Earth currents map and a claim that it makes sense is not evidence. Again; while, as I showed, the spherical Earth model can perfectly explain the Coriolis effect, the flat Earth model requires, according to my opponent, the Sun and the moon acting as gargantuan magnets, each with a different charge. This hypothesis lacks reason, assuming that the aforementioned is possible, without elaborating further. 2. Foucault's pendulum I see that my opponent has not responded concerning Foucault's pendulum. Should I consider it a point in favour of the spherical Earth, or is my opponent planning on replying on round 4? 3. Chicago Skyline My opponent accept mirages as an explanation for the sea's image changing heights abnormally, and yet not for the Skyline's image being visible from a distance that it, under normal circumstances, should not. They do accept that the light's path can be curved due to atmospheric refraction, but deny that the same phenomenon can occur on the light emitted by the Skyline. This is plainly logically fallacious. If atmospheric refraction can cause a mirage that lowers the sea's level about one centimetre on my screen, it can make the Chicago Skyline visible too (notice how, on 0.12 - 0.14 the Willis tower can also be seen to wobble abnormally [1]), as the research I previously cited along with the video confirms [2]. 4. Evidence of the curvature i. Space shuttle The video my opponent cites, although with the latter being correct about the image possibly being distorted through artificial means, is not the same as the one I linked to in round 3 [3]. My opponent has yet to dismiss my argument. I would also like to add that the image of the video [3] being distorted like the one my opponent proposed is not possible, as the gasses constantly emitted from the rocket and the rocket itself would too be visibly distorted. Hence, my opponent's thesis is dismissed. ii. Curved power lines I accept the video's explanation for the picture of the curved power lines as adequate. 5. Flights over Antarctica Yes, my argument is that the weather in Antarctica is quite often inappropriate for scheduled flights. It seems that my opponent ignored the point I made concerning recorded flights over Antarctica [4,5]. 6. Flight patterns My opponent assumes that in a flight pattern, the schedule is arranged according to the most straight possible way that leads to the final destination. I do not twist the discussion, but rather remind them that their premises are false, as a significant factor for arranging flight patterns is what the average of the passengers want. I would also like to see my opponent's sources for the two flight patterns presented, if possible. 7. Gravity My opponent's initial argument was the water's curvature being impossible, with the aforementioned always maintaining its level. I explained that the latter is an illusion, stemming from our experience of the Earth's flat surface, despite its actual enormous size, while the water can curve around a sphere due to the gravitational pull. I assume that my explanation is sufficient. My opponent claims that gravity is, quoting them, "a theory, created to support an assumption (globe Earth)". This statement is false. Gravity is not a theory, it is a law of physics, namely an actual and observed force that pulls matter towards the Earth. This is an undeniable fact. Acceleration always requires a force, as all observation so far suggests. Hence acceleration towards the Earth (experiment: pick up a rock, let it fall) too requires a force, which is named gravity. Density cannot produce a force, especially towards a fixed direction, for the reasons I stated in round 3. Buoyancy too requires a force, which pulls the air/water particles towards a direction. In the spherical model, the observational data can be perfectly applied. My question is, how can the flat Earth model explain that force? 8. Midnight Sun I would like my opponent to address their argument. I stated that "the midnight sun phenomenon can be explained by the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis". How do they refute that? 9. I also wish to ask two more questions. i. The flat Earth model postulates that the Sun and the moon are moving in circular orbits above the flat Earth. How can my opponent explain the force that keeps the orbits circular? It is common sense that, in a circular orbit, a force that pulls/pushes towards the centre is necessary, as otherwise the object's inertia would direct its motion towards a straight line. ii. The distance from the Earth and the size of the Sun of the flat Earth model obviously cannot allow for the Sun emitting light because of continuous nuclear fusion, as predicted by the spherical Earth model. How does the Sun emit light, assuming a flat Earth? Sources: [1]. [2]. https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.gr... [3]. [4]. https://en.wikipedia.org... (see the last paragraphs of "biography") [5]. http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com...