Earth is flat

My opponent's point about Pikes Peak: My source indicates that at a distance of about 3 miles, the horizon can conceal an object about 6 feet tall. Pikes Peak is over 14,000 feet tall, so it is logical that it can be seen from faraway. This is actually an interesting point, if my opponent suggests a flat Earth, does that mean that I should be able to see just about anything I want if I just get really good binoculars? " Gravity is just a theory, and outdated one at that. Gravity can be disproven in several ways...then how can we have a liquid inner layer holding up trillions of tons of solid rock and mountain where as The force is so much stronger being closer to the center." I genuinely don't understand why we wouldn't when the temperature (as a result of pressure as a result of gravity) is clearly high enough. I ask my opponent to read the following link about gravity. There are formulas about it that have been shown to work consistently and I haven't seen any real evidence that disprove gravity. It is a theory that WORKS, and we use it all the time for calculations that yield results. http://thehappyscientist.com... "Water has a natural physics of finding and maintaining a level surface at its lowest possible point." Water itself does not have a "natural physics" of "finding a level surface". Water is not an animate object, it acts according to natural laws such as GRAVITY. In space, there is no up or down, low or high. These can only exist relative to an object. It should be noted that the water of the oceans, obviously, does reside in areas that are lower relative to dry land. However water itself does not form a "hump". We have something called "sea level", which means that the water on the Earth isn't really "higher" on any one point. (This is not completely true as "sea level" is higher near the equator due GRAVITY and the spin of the Earth). In fact, I'd like to see my opponent explain this phenomenon with the Flat Earth Theory. http://www.psmsl.org... "What size mass does gravity start to attract things?...Most planets have moons, why don't moons have natural satellites, or mini-moons?" All things that have mass have a gravitational pull. Moons don't have natural satellites of their own because larger objects (such as the planet) have a gravitational pull much stronger than the moon and so objects end up orbiting the larger object (planet). "I ask again why would they wait so long after the launch to retrieve the camera?" Why does it matter? "The moon does go around a circle above our heads, in near unison with the stars." I think my opponent forgets that the reason we see the moon "move" at night is not due to the motion of the moon itself, but rather to the spin of the Earth. It takes the moon an entire month to move all the way around the Earth. "When the Astro-nots escaped the atmosphere, were they free of this "friction"... If so, why couldn't they save us some fuel tax money and wait form the moon, or any planet to zoom by on it's journey around the sun?" Well yes, objects that escape the atmosphere are free of its friction. I don't understand what my opponent means with the second sentence/question and request that he/she is more clear in general. 1. "People circumnavigating the globe are only going around the center of the earth in a wide circle which is magnetic north. With this level of deception, they can say anyone did anything." What level of deception? I provided a source that clearly says that the globe was circumnavigated North so South. I don't understand how this is disputable. 2. "Wouldn't the mountains surely sink in this ocean of lava?" I requested that my opponent provide an explanation for the phenomena of molten rock under the surface of the Earth using the Flat Earth model and he failed to do so. And no, we clearly see that mountains don't "sink" in this "ocean of lava. 3. "Density is what causes the ball to sink" I ask my opponent to explain in the last Round, without referring to gravity, how the density of an object causes it to sink. I have a piece of iron and I throw it in the pool. The iron is more dense than the water, so it sinks. I ask my opponent to explain this without reference to gravity. And yes, as I mentioned above, gravity is a rather strong "theory" with experimental confirmation. We have not a single observation that defies the idea of gravity, so why would you deny gravity itself? 4. Crepuscular Rays With a bit of research (googling it and hitting the first link) one can find that "Despite seeming to converge at a point, the rays are in fact near-parallel shafts of sunlight, and their apparent convergence is a perspective effect (similar, for example, to the way that parallel railway lines seem to converge at a point in the distance)." https://en.wikipedia.org... The picture with the sun appearing to be smaller doesn't prove much because in the first of the two images, you can't really tell where the boundaries of the Sun are because of how it's shining. If I asked my opponent to show where the boundaries are (where the Sun ends and where just its rays begin), he wouldn't be able to do so with accuracy and neither would I. On the last image...it doesn't matter what might "make more sense" to you, math is absolute. 5. (This point is totally dropped, please read it in last Round). 6. "They are round yes, but not necessarily spheres. You can draw a circle on paper, it's round, but it's not spherical." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my opponent in this statement admitted that celestial objects are indeed round, not flat? And if so I ask, why is the Earth, alone, flat? 1. "wouldn't a large layer of molten silica absorb a small layer of solid rock and Mountain?" As we see, no, it wouldn't. 2. "if I see a shooting star over head according to the globe Theory it should be at someone's Horizon coming up. why don't we ever see them Rise Up from the horizon?" What is your evidence that we don't? 3. "vacuums pick up the lightest objects first which means our atmosphere should have been gone long ago." Well yes, it takes less force to move a smaller object so they would move first. I don't see how this is related to the atmosphere. Just because lighter objects require less force to move doesn't mean the gravity of the Earth isn't strong enough to hold the atmosphere. 4. "The gravitational pull if existent would have to be so great that my weight would be around 7000lbs and I would be squashed like a bug." I request actual calculations and evidence for this claim. 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. "Virgin has had 800 investors waiting to be the first amateurs in space 4 quite a few years now, with some demanding a refund knowing that it is impossible" Could my opponent please provide a source so I could read more on this matter? 7. "again with the magic gravity dust, since gravity is relative to everything in the universe with this suppose a specific orbit not be affected by other celestial objects that it probably goes near, other planets for example?" The sentence does not make sense. I, again, ask my opponent to be more clear. What are you asking? 8. Marvelous. Well if we consider Polaris to be the Northern Star, shouldn't it be above the North pole, which is on the axis of rotation...meaning that it shouldn't move. 9. "unseen motion the same constellations you're around when I pay attention" Another sentence that doesn't make sense. Essentially the debate boils down the existence of gravity. While my opponent has now several times damaged his own case (such as that last image with Polaris, doesn't that picture clearly show the spin of the Earth?), he has failed to show that the Earth is flat. The arguments of a Flat-Earther are a conglomeration of ignorance to basic concepts of physics as well as the idea that we, with our eyes, can't see the curvature.