The earth is a sphere

Thanks for the debate Con! This is always an interesting topic to debate.AtmosphereThe size of a vacuum does not affect the strength of the pressure gradient force between itself and a non-vacuum; so space being vast does not mean that the atmosphere is pulled out even more. The fact remains, that gravity balances out the pressure gradient force and this is why we have a stable atmosphere. To ignore this and instead randomly assert that a 'dome of silicate' contains our atmosphere is willful ignorance. Firstly, it is completely unproven and secondly, it would stop satellites and rockets leaving the atmosphere and it would stop meterorites (unless, of course, they break through the dome, but this would mean that our atmosphere would have leaked out millions, if not billions, of years ago).Birds 'defy gravity' because of their wing shape and the flapping of their wings (1), but this is not really relevant.SatellitesIt is more cost effective because it is easier and cheaper to launch low-altitude satellites than high-altitude satellites. A high altitude plane would use a ton of fuel to go all over the earth so that wouldn't be cheap either. Also, as I said in the last round, using composite photos engenders a higher-quality resulting photograph.Con seems to present a false dichtomy between a photoshop altered photo and reality. For example, a fashion magazine model might only have photoshop-altered photos, but it doesn't follow that the photos are faked. They are still dispaying reality, just touched-up.Regarding fish eye lenses, I didn't admit that most videos are shot through fish eye lenses. This is because it is false. It is actually quite a rare sight to see a video recorder with a fish eye lens because they distort the image, so there is little point using them most of the time.Besides, even if we disregard the composite images we can still see from single-shot photos (such as from the moon) that the earth is a sphere. True, someone can quite easily say that NASA are not to be trusted, but on what grounds? Sure, they use photoshop to stitch together composite photos, but at least they admit to it. If it was a massive conspiracy, the size of the secret would be too large to contain. Considering all the people involved in space exploration since the mid-20th century (thousands, if not millions of people), there is no way that a conspiracy this size could be contained.Even if NASA was a conspiracy, it wouldn't explain the shared observations from Roscosmos, ESA or the CNSA. Ultimately, Con violates Occam's Razor, a fundamental rule of rational investigation, because he is arguing for an explanation that makes a lot more assumptions than the main explanation.The burden of proof is on someone to prove that something is faked. Con cannot simply shout 'green screens' and win the debate.The supposed appearance of bubbles doesn't prove anything. NASA have even produced pictures of bubbles in space (2).Astronauts kicking also doesn't prove anything. Why shouldn't they kick? Kicking doesn't have to do anything useful.An astronaut accidentely dropped a tool bag (3). Is that supposed to prove that it's fake?The 'slip up' has been misconstrued. The astronaut wasn't referring to the location of filiming, he was referring to the location of the caller. 'Where I'm talking to you right now' can easily be taken to refer to the location of the person calling.CircumnavigationCon continues to clutch at straws here. The time that Ousland completed the crossing in isn't infeasible considering he was skiing; I calculated it to be about 50 miles a day which isn't particularly difficult for a competent long-distance skiier.Also he went via the south pole, a place reached by quite a few other people as well. But the flat earth model does not have a south pole. That's problematic for the theory is it not?Of course it takes longer to sail round Antarctica, it's a much longer distance.To claim that the earth could be an 'infinite plane' is unproven, and it also contradicts the accounts of the many people who have sailed round the Antarctic continent.Finally, whilst one requires guidance for a modern Antarctic trip, back in the day of the initial Antarctic explorations there were no legal boundaries, but nobody reported infinite plains or the earth's edges (which are the only two possible ways in which the flat earth model can fit in Antarctica).GravityWe can never 100% prove anything in science, it is about finding the best explanation. So far, gravity is the best explanation because it fits into everything. From quantum mechanics to early cosmology. As a matter of fact, without gravity there is no explanation at all of why there are celestial objects at all. Without gravity, everything would just be floating randomly - the reason we have stars and planets is because there is a force drawing things together.The 'earth accelerating upwards theory' is incomplete, since it raises the obvious question of what causes this acceleration. Newton's first law tells us that acceleration can only be due to a resultant force. Without observing a resultant force, we have no justification for positing that the earth is being accelerated upwards.Con seems to misunderstand science. It's not about proving absolute facts, it's about observing something and picking the best explanation for why it occurs. Hence I don't need to prove that gravity absolutely exists, I just need to explain why it is the best explanation for why things fall.Con goes on to make the statement:'Magnetic core huh? This would have to mean everything sticking to or orbiting the earth would have to be composed of metal! False.'But it is not magnetism that causes objects to stick to the earth or orbit around it, this role goes to gravity. Of course, Con does not believe that gravity exists, but in this case he is begging the question by assuming that gravity doesn't exist in order to make this statement.Dipping distancesTelescopes can see into the depths of space - billions of miles away. A distance of 7000NM (roughly the distance between Shanghai and San Francisco) should be easy to be see over with a powerful telescope (admittedly not an old-fashioned nautical telescope).I admit I was wrong with the wave heights, but my point stands. If one stands at the top of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco (which is higher than 800 feet) and points a very powerful telescope in a Westerly direction, he should be able to see China if the world was flat. But this can never happen no matter how powerful a telescope he has. This completely refutes the notion of a flat earth.Con's horizon photos are taken at a low altitude and so would not show any curvature. When one goes to a high enough altitude he shall see a curved horizon. Spyplanes show this, satellites show this, rockets show this, high-enough baloons show this. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a round earth.The picture of the 'dogcam' 20 miles high appears to show a flat horizon, but the source video shows nothing of the sort (4). Go to 7 minutes in, we can clearly see curvature.SunThe reason that flare from the sun is much more extreme in space is because there is no atmosphere to dissipate the light. This is just simple physics.AustraliaAustralia is only about 90 degrees of longitude away from Western USA, so no, they're not on opposite sides of the globe.StarsI will remind voters that it was Con who challenged myself to prove the long-established fact that stars are billions of miles away. It just so happens that science is complex and one requires complex equations to prove certain things. Anyway, we don't need to use maths to prove it; the fact that the moon landings didn't go past any stars on the way to the moon proves that the stars aren't at the altitude that flat earthers claim they are.______________________________-(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://go.nasa.gov...(3) http://bbc.in...(4) http://bit.ly...