Earth: Spherical vs Flat

The Horizon "That only goes against common sense if the world is flat," Even a child in a bathtub sees this, no experiment ever has shown water to do anything but find it's level. However, when centrifugal force is applied to it, water escapes such things as tennis balls, but not the earth, isn't this curious, yet another gravity excuse. "And in the case of the football field that he produces, this is accurate. However, this is only the case when the line of sight of the person watching the ship leave, is level with the bottom of the ship" As the camera is inches from the football fields floor, and the football field is a fraction of 3 miles, where the supposed horizon is for a 6' tall human is, the scaling is accurate. With this, it stands that ships do not go over a curve. This phenomenon was filmed by a spherical Earth proponent, and analyzed by a flat earth proponent, and the results are interesting. . https://youtu.be... As I've stated, a telescope or telescopic lens will bring the ship back into full view. Does my opponent propose that telescopes possess some magical property, being able to pull the ship backwards over the curve? I ask that common sense be used in dispelling this overused, proposterous proof of a spherical earth once and for all. . https://youtu.be... The coriolis effect " ,. .. that all drains in all of the Southern hemisphere are shaped to drain clockwise and all drains in the North are shaped to drain the other way," I suppose my opponent has inspected every toilet in both hemispheres to prove this, and can positively relate this to the small force of the earth's supposed spin. Drains go a certain way due to both the shape of the bowl, and the direction of entry that the water makes. . https://youtu.be... "Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface. " So, the bullet, with great force in one direction, allows the earth to spin under it, but balloons, allowed to float freely, do not? This is illogical to say the least. "Clouds move in different directions because. . . :" But I thought that "Gravity is holding the atmosphere, for the most part, pinned to the surface"? My opponent is contradictory. " I've fired long-distance shots with firearms, and the Coriolis effect had an impact. " Strawman ". .. hurricanes and cyclones spin according to the Coriolis effect, even in different directions according to the hemisphere it is in. " They spin in both directions in both hemispheres, this proves nothing. Photos " Never mind what composite photo means, by the way" My opponent draws the reader away from my argument, I repeat, ALL "photos" of earth from space are composites. This means that photos of earth are "stitched together in Photoshop. I can take pictures of animals in the zoo, piece them together, and create ligers, zebraffes, and elephippos, this does not make them fact. I'm reminded of a flat earth proponent asking a skeptic why he thought we went to the moon, when the skeptic replied, I saw it on TV, the flat earth proponent answered, I saw a 200 foot gorilla climbing buildings, and kidnapping white chicks, do you also believe this? All jokes aside, click on any details of any image with one exception, and you will see "composite image" in the description. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... As I mentioned, there is one famous photo of earth, this video explains how the image was produced. Pretty clever, but fake, for sure. . https://youtu.be... "He also asks for evidence that satellites are in space, to that I can direct him here: . https://www.google.com...; Unclear what the link means, and how it supports the existence of satellites, if he is talking about "satellite" images, this can also be done with high altitude flights. "Or perhaps the GPS on his phone. " Cell tower triangulation has been used for years, the idea that they abandoned this technique in favor of a more expensive one to track you down instead of building more and better towers (we see them going up all around us) is ridiculous. Satellites are said to be in the thermosphere, which is said to reach some 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Please tell me which elements can withstand this heat, and see if satellites are made entirely of this material. Lateral movement ". .. if you were to stand in Lincoln, Nebraska, stand facing true North, turn 90 degrees right and follow that direction in a straight line. .. " Another strawman. Please explain to our viewers how you propose to do this, and prove your ball. The mirage "I restate my source as Facebook, in which, if it is not the same photo from the tweet, then it was taken at the same time. " How can one man take two photos at the same time? Regardless, the photo I presented is proved to be 57 miles away, and we should not see what we see. The proof stands, as no valid refutation has been offered by my opponent, this proof is empirical. Gyroscopes . https://youtu.be.... (2:09) "I didn't say ships go over a curve at 3 miles: it's much longer than that" I never said you did, but it is suggested by spherical geometry that the average human sees 3 miles to the horizon, this is where the earth should start dropping. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Correction, 100km is the "karma line" or firmament, 100,000 ft is what most balloons achieve. As you can see from my video, the earth stays at eye level, and perfectly flat, so what you think you saw from a plane, or toward the Andes is irrelevant. "This is applicable even on a flat Earth: the further you get. .. " Not for an infinite plane, simulations prove this. . https://youtu.be... " I ignored the arguments of the hotspot because the hotspot presented no argument. " It shows empirical proof that the sun is near the earth, the hotspot would be impossible if it were 93 million miles away. This proves my point, and can't be refuted. "Evidence must be solid. .. " My opponent has not explained this, how much more solid than seeing with your eyes can you get? Twent-four hour days "Antarctica is not off-limits to every civilian. " No civilian is allowed to freely explore Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty prevents this. Try to go, and ignore the warnings they give you to turn back, please. " NASA isn't involved in Antarctica. .. " Operation Highjump was in 1946-1947, this was to find the dome. Nasa started in 1959, to monopolize space travel, or to prevent anyone from reaching the dome. The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 to prevent anyone else from finding it, Operation Fishbowl was in 1962, this was to try and destroy the dome. Now, these missions will tell you other reasons obviously, but the puzzle fits together nicely. Whether you want to put it together is up to you, your ignorance is not my problem. Mount Chimborazo " When modern telescopes are still perfectly capable of seeing at least more than 60 miles away. " If there were no such thing as an atmosphere. Again, common sense. . https://answers.yahoo.com... Gravity and Tides "Here is how tides work: . http://science.howstuffworks.com...; This is how mainstream science say tides work, since I've offered an alternative, reasonable explanation for tides, and there was no rebuttal, this can no longer be considered proof of a spherical earth. But to satisfy the matter, let's look at why the tides supposedly happen twice per day on a spherical earth. From my opponents source: "The bulge on the side of the Earth opposite the moon is caused by the moon "pulling the Earth away" from the water on that side. " This is complete nonsense. if the earth were pulling the earth away from the water, with it's miniscule amount of gravity relative to the earths, there would be no tide on the side that faces the moon. Furthermore, how can this miniscule force out pull the earths gravity, which is holding even air magically velcroed to it's surface "mostly"? Why isn't anything else pulled towards the moon? Gravity is said to get stronger with proximity, so what stops the moon from pulling the earths waters to its surface? The whole idea is stupid, and requires another explanation. Lunar eclipses "Selenelions are thought to be possible due to atmospheric refraction" So we are to believe that "refraction" causes the light from both bodies rot bend itself In opposite directions, AND causes the shadow to move in the wrong direction to boot? "It is also worth noting that my opponent didn't bother to give an explanation of how lunar eclipses could work on a flat earth. " Regardless of what actually causes lunar eclipses, it's apparent that the earth does not block the light from the sun, and more research needs to be done. A few explanations are offered in the flat earth model, but I lean more toward Rahu, as the ancients believed. An invisible, 3rd body that comes betweenthe sun and moon on occasion. The ancients were not dumbed down versions of us, building complex structures such as the pyramids which we can begin to explain, some even believe they had unlimited electrical power, this would explain the light bulb like objects in ancient texts and drawings. . http://www.ancient-code.com... Star constellations "My opponent didn't bother rebutting my point here, " I'd did, the stars are close, and like the sun and moon, they disappear over the horizon like we see the sun and moon do, due to the law of perspective (football field? ) I merely stated that the firmament was supported by Tesla. Not sure what my opponent is trying to say with the rest of this paragraph. The view of the moon Laugh if you want, if the moon were close, and circled around at the equator line, the same results would occur. Michelson Morley Dropped In conlusion, the spherical earth theory does not stand up to reexamination.