The Earth is flat

1. Coriolis effect That, I understand. What I am asking my opponent to explain is the Sun and the moon being "some sort of an electromagnetic phenomenon". Massive and everlasting electromagnetic phenomena orbiting above a flat Earth cannot be justified by "chance", while, this being a scientific discussion, I hope that the explanation is not of religious or philosophical nature. The heliocentric - spherical Earth model, on the other hand, has been shown to be perfectly consistent with observation regarding the Coriolis effect. 2. Foucault's pendulum That is great. I hope that my other arguments will persuade my opponent as well. 3. I explained how my opponent's statement was fallacious, but I will do so once more: in the video, two peculiar phenomena can be observed; the sea level changing by remarkable distances and the Chicago Skyline being visible where it should not, because of the Earth's curvature. Whereas both phenomena can be explained by atmospheric refraction, my opponent chooses to explain only the former this way, and claims that the latter is seen to be so due to the Earth being flat. I was asked to explain the Chicago Skyline being visible from such a distance, and I did; my answer is atmospheric refraction, which I find sufficient. The video was my proof that the aforementioned can produce such incredible effects, that my opponent requested. I am not quite sure what point did my opponent attempt to make through their second paragraph, but I believe I have adequately addressed the topic above. 4. Evidence of the curvature i. Indeed, that was a video which I cherry picked among the innumerable ones on the internet. Does that discredit my argument? I think not. I will explain what made me pick this specific video: Apparently, it is apparently a video that demonstrates the Earth's curvature. Usually, such evidence is dismissed by supporters of the flat Earth hypothesis, claiming that the, curvature is caused via artificial distortion lens. In this case, though, lens distortion is impossible, as there can be seen gasses flowing off the rocket in every direction in straight lines, for which a distorted image would not allow. Hence the irrefutable evidence of the Earth's curvature. I would also like to point out that videos and pictures taken via distortion lens existing certainly does not prove the flat Earth model right, but rather shows that one has to cherry pick the photographs and videos they use as evidence, just like I did. ii. Rather interestingly, I came up with a counter argument. Let's see: a. (Curves: [1]; I will later refer to these as CU/CD - Concave Up/Concave Down) Examining the video my opponent cited [2], pausing at 7.22 and 7.33, one can conclude that the block towers form a CU (increasing) curve at the former and CD (decreasing) curve at the latter. b. Therefore, assuming a flat Earth, the power lines too would form a CU when viewed from the one side and CD from the other. c. In these two videos [3,4] the power lines are seen to form a CD viewed from both sides. Therefore, what is causing the curve is the Earth's curvature itself, and not them not being in a completely straight line. 5. Flights over Antarctica i. It seems that my opponent misunderstands the point I attempted to make through the two cited flights over Antarctica. Let me rephrase; how is it possible for a straight flight across Antarctica to happen on a flat earth with Antarctica around it? ii. Yet again, the weather in Antarctica is not always severe, thus allowing a few research flights that have long before been organised, but not scheduled flights which, should they come to be, will most likely be usually cancelled due to weather conditions. 6. I notice that my opponent has not replied in regards to their initial "Flight patterns" argument. I assume that my explanation was sufficient. 7. Gravity I would like my opponent to view the topic from a perspective other than "gravity is just a theory". I will explain below: i. When an object falls, we observe acceleration. ii. Simple Newtonian physics tells us that acceleration always requires a force. iii. Therefore, there is a force pulling the falling object towards the Earth. iv. We named that force gravity. v. As Newton concluded by observing the motion of planets, the gravitational interaction between two bodies equals G (constant) * m1 (the mass of the first body) * m2 (the mass of the second body) / r^2 (the distance between them squared), or F = G* m1*m2 / r^2 (note that Einstein's relativity has corrected several parts of this equation, but the fact that the force is proportional to the bodies' masses remains valid). vi. The above describes the gravitational interaction between the two bodies, namely the result of the gravitational pull exercised by both bodies. The pull one body, such as the Earth, exercises is not affected by the pulled bodies' mass, but is still affected by the distance between them. Example: We have two bodies, A and B, with masses mA=m1 and mB=m2, where m1= 2* m2. We let them both fall from a height r. Due to their equal distance from the Earth, they will accelerate at the same rate and reach the ground at the same time (without taking air resistance into account, of course). This experiment has been conducted in artificial vacuum multiple times. If, on the other hand, we get two objects with, for simplicity, equal mass, mA=mB, but let them fall from different heights, rB= 2* rA, the object A will accelerate faster and reach the ground faster than the object B. This has been confirmed by observation and is, of course, an experiment anyone can conduct themselves. My opponent's explanations for gravity, on the contrary, have been dismissed in their previous rounds. It is apparent that the flat Earth model cannot explain adequately the physics law of gravity. 8. Midnight sun My opponent's argument is based on mere misunderstanding of and ignorance of specific elementary postulations of physics. Concerning my opponent's reference to the big bang, I am not going to elaborate on the aforementioned now, for it is a subject irrelevant to this debate. Instead, I reccomend that my opponent researches the topic and the evidence in favour of it. The reason one is unable to perceive the Earth's motion is the latter not accelerating rapidly and our planet being located into a vacuum. In order to demonstrate my points, I will use the following analogy. I would like my opponent to imagine a car moving with a fixed speed (=no significant acceleration) in a place with no air resistance (=vacuum), and a person on top of it throwing a ball up in the air and catching it again, with an observer standing on the ground motionless. While the ball is thrown up and down with no difference than as if it was not on a moving car, the latter is moving and the observer sees the ball move along with the car. In the same way the person on top of the car and the ball perceive no motion, they are moving and the observer can confirm that (null air resistance is important for this analogy, I have to remind). In the same way, we are located on the Earth which I moving in great speed in a vacuum, but cannot directly perceive that motion, as any accelerations that happen are not significant in comparison to the average velocity. The proof we have for the Earth's rotation is mainly the Coriolis effect and Foucault's pendulum, while by observing our galaxy's motion relative to our supercluster and our Sun's motion relative to our galaxy we can figure out the Earth's actual velocity. 9. Questions That sounds good as well. I believe that I should instigate a part 2 of this debate, so that I and my opponent can further discuss the topic. Sources: [1]. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu... [2]. https://youtu.be... [3]. https://youtu.be... [4]. https://youtu.be...