The earth is a spheroid.

"Con only accepts the "planet on which we live" portion of the definition for earth, in the definitions, and that's fine.What's not fine, is Con's feeble attempt at refuting my case for a spheroid Earth."I do not accept the earth definition of "planet". Please read my statement. To assume it is a planet, or a wandering star, is assuming the heliocentric model. "I had mentioned that orbital velocity is a speed that is reached by objects that get caught in Earth's orbit given their size and radial distance from earth."Yes, this is a wonderful idea, assuming we lived on a spinning ball, but mentioning something is not really proving so with the scientific method. Con responds:"I see no reason to believe it..."My response:"Your argument from personal incredulity is as fallacious as it is unfounded.Whether or not you can believe something has no bearing on whether or not it's true, and all of the functioning satellites orbiting around the earth are reasons you should see to believe the orbital velocity concept."I've given a more probable explanation for satellites, or GPS anyway. There may very well be satellites, but to assume they are all flying around a globe is an assertion, with no verifiable evidence. Balloons, (1) solar powered drones (2) are more probable than both "geostationary" and orbiting "satellites". Consider the undersea cables and towers, and anything satellites are claimed to do are perfectly alternatively explained."The equations for orbital velocity have been used to launch every single one of the 1,738 satellites currently orbiting the earth, listed at all confirmed satellite databases.https://s3.amazonaws.com...;I'm just trying to clarify here. Pro is attempting to prove that we live on a spinning spheroid by pointing to his calculator. I'm reminded of a Tesla quote:""Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."Pro, it may very well work on paper, this doesn't mean that it is reality. This requires evidence. "You can actually check every single satellite's live orbit around the earth at this awesome, free, sign-up-less, site below.Let it load and search for the weather satellite "Aqua" or search one of the many "Navstar" satellites and you can watch them orbit earth.http://stuffin.space...;And a computer simulation doesn't really cut it. I can go to an ISS tracking site and see exactly where the ISS is supposed to be at any time, until I change the time on my computer, then it bounces to where it should be at that time and date. I can even go outside and see something fly by in the sky, that doesn't mean it is what, where or how it is claimed to be, or that anyone is up there at all. Civilians aren't allowed to verify any of this information, so this is a form of appeal to authority. Unverifiable information as it were."Readers can check out the actual equations at the physics classroom link I provided first round and see that orbital velocity is necessarily successful on its radius property, which necessarily requires a spheroid/spherical center."Equations. This is not scientific, this is mathematics, a tool of the scientific method. "I had also provided a database of all satellites currently in Earth's orbit, which readers can cross check with the interactive, live view of those satellites moving in Earth's orbit."Yes, we saw the computer simulation. Still waiting on evidence. "Which satellites mentioned in the database are errant, Con?"The ones said to be "orbiting" it, because the earth has been observed as flat and motionless."Why is it that I can cross-check any of the satellites mentioned in the database and locate their position in Earth's orbit, Con?"How do you observe that specific satellite in that specific orbit, pro?"If there were no spheroid center, the radius of all of these satellites moving relative to Earth wouldn't be calculable.The calculations for orbital velocity work, and I gave over 1,700 examples of it."You gave over 1,700 dots on a computer simulation, moving around a cartoon ball that didn't even look like earth. Where are all those "satellites" in the ISS feed? What about the supposed "pictures" of earth? Why are they absolutely devoid of ANY of the "Over 1,700" chunks of ir reflective(shiny) metal ranging from bus to football field size in any of the supposed pictures of earth from space?My response:"Yeah, and fire was used long before lighters were invented.That doesn't change the existence of butane, metal or plastic and their ability to form a lighter to create fire."I don't follow. Are you saying that people don't use fire anymore? I've given evidence that GPS is probably tower triangulation, with hundreds of millions being admittedly spent developing. I saw a "satellite" on the list from your list that was "launched" in 1978. 40 years of high speed motion with "Over 1,700" other chunks of highly sensitive material without any maintenance in temperatures of about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C(3,632° F) or higher.(3) "GPSs use the distance between four or more satellites to calculate your device's location on Earth and this calculation ALSO involves the radius of the satellites from a central spheroid mass, the Earth."Were back on assumptions and baseless claims again.My response:"What's wrong with the temperature given the materials the satellites are made of?Titanium, aluminum, cadmium, nickel, and the alloys there within perfectly allow for the increasing temperatures, when higher altitudes are reached in the thermosphere."These materials have a far lower melting point than 2,000 C°. Couple that with the excess heat from the vast array of electronics on board each of them, and the basic laws of thermodynamics, and you've got yourself one big fairy tale, I'd say. This makes satellites an impossibility. Look at all these sci-fi cartoons.http://lmgtfy.com...My response:"Therefore no satellites?Come on man."If an alternative is even more plausible than the original, the burden has not been met, agreed? If cables carry 99%, and towers carried only 1%, what's left for satellites to carry? Do you even logic?"All cell phone companies use satellites directly or indirectly for their broadband service, and the transfer of information after that point speaks not to whether or not there are satellites in Earth's orbit."Wonderful, another unevidenced claim. Love it."I sourced a peer-reviewed Institute of Physics article ..."Objective reality. Scientific method. Verifiability. This is what evidence should consist of. Not an appeal to authority. If there aren't countless experimental, scalable, verifiable and objective experiments that prove we are monkeys on a spinning ball, then we likely aren't."Instead, Con asserts that the Earth hasn't moved without any sourcing at all."I use the scientific method to show that the earth isn't moving. Here's an experiment anyone can perform:https://youtu.be..."Con just doesn't do much in the way of refuting, other than saying "No it's not."So, I extend my other arguments."I mean, you can extend or drop it, whatever you'd like to call it, so that you don't have to address it?Selenelions can go on record all day long, it doesn't negate orbital velocity, satellites, the earth's point in its formation, and actual lunar eclipses always showing circular shadows.My opponent also assumes, because a circular shadow is cast upon the sun or moon, that the earth is the cause. He ignores the selenelions argument and attempts to claim they aren't "actual lunar eclipses" for obvious reason. It is irrefutable proof that the earth isn't necessarily a ball.1. https://www.nasa.gov...2. https://www.nasa.gov...3. https://scied.ucar.edu...