Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

Thanks to my opponent for issuing the debate. I assumed the crux of the debate was to explore the shape of the earth, and not theoretical maths, which cannot be proved, and often have little to do with the reality we live in. My opponent states that since gravity is likely a real thing then the earth must be round. As I have yet to explore the realm of these theoretical maths in full, I will keep my arguments simple, so that the voters can understand, and vote accordingly. It is my intention to show that gravity is unlikely, while showing that the earth is flat empirically, thus negating my opponents entire argument. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla Intro to gravity Gravity was developed as a way to make the ball earth work. People did not understand, and thought it quite foolish that water, people, and mountains could hang upside down until recently, after all, this goes against everyday observations completely. Even minds like Tesla, knew the idea was ignorant, and anyone who fell for it was completely deluded. Today, since we were indoctrinated from birth, and the idea is a staple in all education systems, we no longer question it's validity. But this theory of Gravity is not complete, the maths is super complex, and no man on earth truly understands it. Since it's birth gravity has had many people calling it an atrocity to the scientific method, not excluding it's own inventor. Sir Isaac Newton said: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers." Not only did Newton find his theory ridiculous, others have come forth rejecting the idea, like PBS NOVA (1), QUORA (2) GSU (3) Livescience (4) Livescience 2.0 (5) Astronomy Today (6) and Nature.com (7). Why? Because it doesn't exist! If it does, I would like some, can my opponent show me of picture of it? In the end, gravity is a great idea, but it must first depend on the earth being a ball to exist. After the proper rebuttals to my opponents other arguments, I will show that gravity does not exist by showing that the earth is indeed flat, up is up, down is down, and things with weight have a tendency to move to an equal or greater density, while things of lesser density rise to equilibrium. If Gravity were true, and Darwinism true - both of which are taught as true to children, then we would evolve as pancake people. Why objects fall down "My opponent must have a reason, besides the concept of gravity, as to why objects fall down in the first place" Simple, up is up, down is down, the molecules surrounding the apple were too sparse to hold the Apple up once it is detached from the tree branch. I could return the question to you: how does gravity cause everything to fall? How does the sun affect things billions of miles away? How do elliptical orbits work? If gravity gets stronger with proximity, then at the point when a planet or moon is closest to the object it is orbiting, what opposing, greatly increasing force prevents it from being pulled into the attracting object? And gravity cannot hold that object in it's orbit when it is furthest away from it unless it were greatly increasing, so the object should be flung out into space! "the equation for gravity accurately describes this effect." But it doesn't sufficiently explain it. Things on earth may follow the same rules for falling, so the maths add up, but this doesn't necessarily prove that the earth is round. " The gravitational formula explains as to why larger, more massive, celestial bodies would exert a much greater gravitational force than smaller, less massive objects." But as with any experiment, it should be scaleable, but it's not, no object can be shown to stick orbit, or be attracted to another. Here is 4 men in a car falling at the same rate as 1 person and a camera. (8) Note that things don't fall at a faster rate when closer to the earth either. ""Gravity is simply density and buoyancy. People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air. If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly. Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling. A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium. In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums. Critical density variation is "gravity."" Darrell Dragoo II. Orbiting Moons, and other celestial bodies Comparing the ground beneath our feet to objects in the sky and their movements is like saying the billiard table is a ball because the billiard balls are, and that at any moment the table should fall into a giant pocket somewhere. I do not propose that the earth is a disc or cylinder, it may be an infinite plane, so that objects in the sky may behave as they please, this doesn't affect the ground beneath our feet. III. Satellites The ISS is likely a plane. I have two reasons to believe this. a) Planes fly at around 7 miles high. At this height, we can barely make out a dot in the sky when one passes overhead. The ISS is said to be 249 miles out. The law of perspective shows that viewing the ISS, even with a telescopic lens would be near impossible. b) Holographic technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since it's invention. It is entirely possible that the image is a hologram displayed under a U2 plane. c) Temperatures at this altitude reach some 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit. Not many elements can withstand this heat. Characteristics of a Sphere The spherical earth model claims that the earth isn't a perfect sphere at all. "Oblate spheroid", "pear shaped", etc have been used to describe the shape of the earth, so my opponents claim that " the gravitational pull occurs in ALL directions towards the center" disproves his own argument. " any piece of large rock would pull other pieces of large rocks towards it, in all directions" Isn't the moon a large piece of rock? again, my opponent refutes the heliocentric model. "Furthermore, using that phenomenon, Earth"s own gravitational forces would morph the flat disc into a sphere." The earth may be an infinite plane. C.2 Angular Size of the Sun "the observable size of the sun should change drastically" It does. (8)(9)(10) "Furthermore, as the animation shows, the sun should never really appear to set." If there were no such thing as perspective, the vanishing point, or convergence. (11) (12) Contentions C1 The sun and moon First brought up by my opponent, is now being used against him. As we saw, the sun does in fact shrink in size. The dog cam (13) shows a very large sun, not to mention a perfectly flat horizon, rising to the eye's level. Also note the hotspot directly under the sun. It's not entirely clear what size or how far away the sun is, but it's clearly not 93 million miles away. The Go fast rocket launch (14) shows a very small moon, which was supposed to be over Australia, the opposite side of the "globe" from it's launch, which was done in Nevada. C2 Chicago Skyline Joshua Nowicki has been photographing Chicago (15) from 57 miles away. As the weatherman States this should be impossible, but I reject his claim that this is a mirage. There is no distortion, or inversion, common properties of all mirages. All in all, while these maths may add up and be able to measure some things on earth and in the sky, it is not proof of a spherical earth. (1) http://www.pbs.org... (2) https://www.quora.com... (3) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... (4) http://www.livescience.com... (5) http://www.science20.com... (6) http://www.astronomytoday.com... (7) http://www.nature.com... (8) https://youtu.be... (9) https://youtu.be... (10) https://youtu.be... (11) http://whotfetw.com... (12) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (13) https://youtu.be... (14) https://youtu.be... (15) https://youtu.be...