The Earth exists as an oblate spheroid

First, a major thank you to Death23 for providing a link to the image. I don"t know how it failed to upload if all of my other images loaded correctly, but regardless, thank you. NASA says so: I stick by with my idea that just giving me a source and saying "NASA says so" is a logical fallacy, which is at its core an error in judgement or a flaw in reasoning. Just because someone may say something is true does not immediately prove that something is true, especially if the content which the source says is false. I go back to my refutations to your case, where a flat earth can also have climactic cells, which directly refutes you using your source to prove that it has to have a spheroid earth. I"m sorry for saying that you used an appeal to authority logical fallacy, I understand now that this is false. But this does bring up an interesting thought: who is to say that NASA is not lying to us all? A lot of people do believe that the moon landing was faked (and there is some validity to those claims, let"s be honest)... who is to say that they are not going out to "space" as a lie to keep us believing in their claims [1]. In any case, most of the defense that you had for this was just the fallacious argument that I thought that you had made, as opposed to actually defending my attacks on the article itself. True, NASA may have said it, and they might be an authority, but their proof for a spheroid earth is not really enough to prove. The article said that climactic cells prove that the earth is spherical, but I proved that this is not the case. Regardless if what you are citing is an authority on a subject or not, the source has to actually prove the claim that you are making and must be free from attack. I attacked the entire source, so it does not back up your point of "NASA says so". Animation of Sun: We cannot know how the Sun started to spin about the earth in this particular fashion, but my hypothesis based upon Newton"s First Law of Motion. I think that the sun was pushed by some sort of force (again, we do not know what caused it, just a hypothesis) that made it have a major spin going to the left, which would make it go around the earth. There is enough debris that would push it along, because in a vacuum this motion is impossible, of course. Australia and Antarctica: What I gave you is just an estimated map. If you are in favor of an oblong spherical earth, then you are probably in favor of a lot of 2D maps that do not show everything to scale. The Mercator Projection, one of the most popular 2D maps, shows Greenland being almost the same size as Africa, which is a wild claim to make [2]. Does that mean that they are equal, just because it appears on a map to be so? No, it does not mean this at all. So what is my opponent refuting? My use of a map when he likely supports a map that is just as bad, or dare I say, even worse? Antarctic Expeditions: We have not been on Jupiter yet I believe it is safe to assume that it exists. Just because we have not seen it does not mean it does not exist. Faked Images: I do have a reasonable basis for saying that the images and videos that you cited are faked, because other photographs that you cited were, in fact, edited. Look at the four earths picture that I pointed out, this is obviously doctored, yet NASA still holds this photo. It is not reasonable to assume that all photos are real when one is obviously not. Milky Way: I am sorry for assuming that the picture I gave you was believed to be the Milky Way when it is in fact Andromeda galaxy, this was an honest mistake. I remember being a kid and seeing many posters that had pictures of the Milky Way galaxy that had NASA as the source for the photos at the bottom. I cannot find any at this time, but they do exist. What this means is that NASA took a picture from a distant galaxy, even though they claim to never have been past Pluto. Obviously the photos that I remember seeing on posters in astronomy and science fairs made by NASA were faked, and we cannot really believe any other photos that they claim to have if they often fake photos. Radius: Mathematically it is equal to a radius. X54; will be the symbol that I will use to denote a circle. X54;A is inside of X54;B, where the radius of X54;A is " of that of X54;B (because the radius of X54;A ends at the equator, the exact center). If we allow the radius of X54;B to equal 2, the radius of X54;A is exactly 1. The circumference of a X54;n is 2*pi*r, so X54;B = 2*pi*2, or 4pi, and X54;A = 2*pi*1, or 2pi. X54;A+X54;A = 2pi+2pi = 4pi. X54;B = 4pi. X54;A+X54;A = X54;B, so X54;A = 1/2X54;B. The radius of X54;A s " of X54;B, so this is logical. Of course, one can not say that a flat earth is perfectly circular, since it is probably elliptical, but this is the simplified proof. Astronomer: Yes, you are appealing to authority by saying someone well respected in an unrelated field has the authority to say something in this field. Geology is the study of the earth, astronomy is the study of the heavens (or space). These are not mutually inclusive fields, so we cannot say he has the authority to make these claims. [1]. http://listverse.com... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...