Earth is flat

There are some faults in my opponent's last Round that I wanted to address, however if the voter deems it unfair that I do so, feel free to skip this part and go to the "Conclusions" section of my final argument. "from sea level at Ft Collins" Fort Collins actually isn't at sea level. . https://en.wikipedia.org... "If we use this information and refer to our chart above, we can see that at 140 miles we get roughly 3 miles of curvature, which translates to about 16,000 ft. " Well instead of just estimating, why don't we actually use the formula provided? X=3959-(3959*(COS(SIN(140/3959))))=2.474 miles 2.474 miles=13,062 feet Pikes Peak is 14,144 feet tall. As we can see, there is a significant 1,000 foot difference, which can be seen as the small sliver above the horizon in the photo my opponent provided in Round 4. "Gravity is not reproduceable on a small scale. Water cannot stick to a ball against centrifugal force. Gravity was invented, not discovered, to make the spherical earth theory work" Centrifugal force is not really applicable to the relationship between Earth and the atmosphere because it would be miniscule (molecules of atmosphere aren't really "attached" to the Earth). How can you say that gravity was invented? I have shown several examples (which I will repeat at the end of this Round) that prove gravity. "then the tennis ball should hold water to it's surface when spun, but it obviously doesn't, this should raise a red flag in and of itself. " Well no, the gravity of a tennis ball is much smaller because of its mass, and is easily overcome by the force of gravity of the Earth combined with the centrifugal force. "Then our moon should not be orbiting us, but the sun. " Well there are many objects that are roughly the size of the moon that orbit the Sun, but don't forget that the distance between the Moon and Sun is much larger than between the Moon and Earth (about 460 times larger). "It matters because the moon's location should be nearly opposite Nevada on a globe, yet we see it well above the horizon" In the video, it appeared that the moon was full (or very close to it). During the full moon phase, the moon should overhead at midnight. Assuming a perfectly spherical Earth (it's not) and a perfectly spherical moon orbit (it's not), the moon should drop below the horizon after 6 hours. The video was taken at 7 am and the rocket went to a very high altitude, so it's pretty logical that the moon is still visible. . http://ps.uci.edu... "if a craft is free of this friction, they should be able to come to a stop (lose all of it's velocity)" No, they can't come to a stop because of Earth's gravitational pull (which would cause them to accelerate towards Earth). "wait for the moon or other destination which is travelling around the sun at 18 mps to come to them. " The moon takes a full month to revolve around the Earth remember? Too long to just sit there and waste fuel to wait. "This is empirical evidence that the earth does not spin, making gravity nonexistent" While I will address this "empirical evidence" later, I would like to note that the Earth's spin has nothing to do with gravity. Conclusions: Unfortunately I didn't have enough characters to address all of my opponent's arguments in every single Round, but here in the conclusion I would like to summarize what has been shown throughout the debate. First of all, I'd like to say that to make the debate easier, I went along with the idea that all of the pictures from space are fake, made by NASA in order to. .. .I don't really know, my opponent's explanation for the reason behind this conspiracy seemed pretty vague. It should be noted that my opponent didn't ever really provide any evidence for this conspiracy at any point throughout the debate. Next, I emphasize that my opponent's arguments really boiled down to either misunderstandings of physics (such as his argument having to do with the atmosphere and the "Midnight Sun") or claims that we simply can't see the curvature, therefore it doesn't exist. While he is correct in that we can't really see it, I feel that there are far too many other proofs for a round Earth that I have made. 1) Gravity- I provided a source that confirms that as altitude increases (distance from center of the Earth), the weight of an object/person decreases. Also, I provided another source that mentions the use of calculations having to do with gravity to solve real world problems, which also confirms gravity. My opponent never effectively refuted either claim and I reassert that gravity does indeed exists and proves a globular Earth. 2) Circumnavigation- We all know that Magellan circumnavigated the globe East to West, but then I also provided a source that confirms that a person circumnavigated the globe North to South. This also serves to prove that the Earth is round. 3) Spin of Earth- My opponent himself brought up the point about constellations and I showed a source that they change throughout the year. Does this not prove a spinning, spherical Earth? He even showed a picture where all of the stars moved except Polaris, which further enforces the point that the Earth rotates about an axis on which North points towards Polaris. I'd also like to note that my opponent brought religious views into the debate several times, which are not accepted by everyone and cannot be used as any kind of proof for a flat Earth. I'd also like to point out that my opponent avoided several key questions throughout the debate such as: "Does my opponent suggest that all celestial objects are flat? If so, then why is the moon clearly spherical? If not, then why is it just the Earth that's flat? " and "If the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, the Sun either revolves in the plane of the Earth, or perpendicular to the plane. If the Sun was revolving IN THE SAME PLANE as the flat Earth, then we would have constant daylight, however if it revolved perpendicular, then there would be periods where the entire Earth is dark, which is clearly not true either. " These questions would be key in the Flat-Earth explanation of reality, but he either purposely chose to avoid them or missed the question. .. .3 times in a row? Point being, these questions seem to be virtually impossible to plausibly answer with the Flat Earth theory in a way that would match our observations. In conclusion, I think it is clear that the Round-Earth Theory is a far more supported hypothesis than the Flat-Earth theory, largely due to the Theory of Gravity without which our world makes absolutely no sense.