Flat-Earth "theory" is redundant

"If the Earth is flat then how come we have day and night? " With a small, close sun, the light is shed locally. Perspective causes the sun to disappear from sight. "why can't you show me a photo of the Earth's edge? "The sun does not hide behind any edge. There may not even be an edge. " Light is a transversal wave (an electro-magnetic wave to be more precise) and it will travel indefinately which is why you can see the lights from all the way across town. It goes on forever"My opponent pretends as though there were no such thing as fog, smog, dust, dew, clouds etc. On a very foggy day, can he still see those lights from the nearby town? The sun is hidden both by a great distance, and atmosphere. This is only common sense, he is attempting to put the sun from his model into the flat earth model. . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... "First of all crepuscular rays are parallel. "My opponent offers a picture from high altitude of some rays from the sun hitting a cloud formation from a greater distance away than what would cast crepuscular rays. Of course the sun is not included in the picture, so it may be close to setting, in relation to the formation. In short, the sun may be a great distance away from this cloud, but it doesn't necessarily mean the sun is far from all clouds, or the earth. The major difference between perspective lines and . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... "If the Sun was close and small then the mountains should be illuminated, but they're not. "That sun is beyond the mountains, or the clouds are not allowing any light to come from the other side of the sun. Again, these crepuscular rays are not parallel. The rays would not be casting light in all directions under it. You can see that the rays are being cast towards the observer, away from him, to the left and to the right. This has been proven to be caused by a light source that is close to a blockage with holes. . http://i.dailymail.co.uk... "I have yet to see a mountain illuminated on both sides. ". https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...Not even when the sun is directly overhead? Chicago SkylineMy opponent attempts a rebuttal to the skyline by saying that the image was shot from atop a 60 meter (200 ft. ) dune with no source, but I'll accept that. As far as his camera bringing him 30 km closer, causing the city to be pulled backwards over the curvature of the earth? This is simply nonsensical, and I see no reason to take this seriously. The zoom will not make curvature disappear, nor will it place the observer closer to the observed, it only makes objects bigger. GyroscopesMy opponent attempts a rebuttal to gyroscopes with the gravity fallacy. I will now give my gravity rebuttal so he knows where I stand with that. Gravity Is a theory. For thousands of years, people just accepted the fact that up was up, and down was down, and we aren't all just floating around, until it was postulated that the Earth was round. Then, the obvious questions came up ie. Why don't people fall off the bottom of the ball? Enter Newton and his apple, who said that since the earth was a ball, (an assumption) the earth must be acting as a big magnet. But he postulated this by looking at an apple falling down and assuming the Earth was a ball. Had a feather broke loose from a branch and floated away what would have happened then? In short, gravity is a theory based on an assumption. Which is ok, but sooner or later, you have to prove those assumptions, which is what my opponent is trying to do now, with that theory. Let's look at that definition again. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum. .. Note that gravity is not mentioned at all. such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth). Since our planet rotates, it appears to a stationary observer on Earth that a gyroscope's axis is completing a full rotation once every 24 hours. "We have seen that these things actually do not happen, which means either that gyroscopes are all faulty, or that the Earth does not spin under a gyroscope, or a plane equipped with one. CompassesMy opponent's rebuttal to compasses is contradictory, and is mostly nonsense in word form. A few examples. "There is no magnet working independently of the Earth. Earth IS the magnet. "Is my opponent suggesting that there are no magnets apart from the Earth that the Earth is the only magnet in existence? To clarify, he doesn't seem to know that the north "pole" in his model, and the center of the earth in my model, is the attraction that compasses are based on ie. All compasses point to north. if you are on the southern hemisphere, the needle that always face north is actually ointing into space, the opposite direction of someone in the northern hemisphere. This is a natural property of a ball. "If the Earth moved upwards then some parts of the Earth would fall off since the gravitational acceleration isn't the same on all parts of the Earth (on the poles it's 9.83, whilst on the Equator it's 9.79 m/s). "Despite what my opponent has read about the flat earth theory, or where he gets this information from, the earth isn't moving, much less 1,000 miles per SECOND. My opponent then expresses his doubts and concerns with gravity. .. "Also, if the Earth is flat, what do you think is on the other side? Some said dirt, but that wouldn't explain volcanoes and the fact that the deeper you dig the higher the temperature is. Some say hell which sounds quite interesting. "This is mere speculation. The furthest anyone has gotten was 7 miles I think, so i won't try to guess what is beneath our feet. I won't even bring up the Bible, and what is claimed there. "Why would governments give up such an effective way to control people? That seems very stupid and poorly thought out. "I'm not sure how saying the earth is flat would be such an effective way to control people. Saying the earth is a ball would place limits on where people go for one. Humans are naturally free. When Columbus "discovered" America, (I don't agree, Native Americans discovered it long before) people flocked to the new land in search of land and resources. No living creatures like cages. Animals, when caged, will search for a few days for a way to escape, and when unsuccessful, will settle in and accept their prison to an extent. Animals on a wildlife sanctuary can go for a very long time before they are confronted with a fence. At this time they will probably just turn around and go back and think nothing of it. Humans on the other hand, will not. Questions arise like: how high is the fence? Who put it here? Why? Can the fence be penetrated? What is on the other side? Etc. We see this even with your model with "space exploration" Our master(s), that is, the god of this world, has effectively put up an invisible boundary by turning the earth into a ball. If by control of the people he means obeying and worshipping a deity, then he has no idea WHO is in control. There is God, who is ultimately in control, and then there is the god of the world, who is in temporary control of most humans today. This entity wants nothing more than an atheistic population. The greatest trick he ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. It is the Great Deception in the "new world" order. Thanks for the debate! One question, was the errortosthenes experiment the best reason that you believe the earth is a ball? Because you dropped it like it was hot.