The earth is a sphere

AtmosphereCommon sense does say that if a vacuum is close to a non-vacuum, the latter wil be lost into the former. However, this is only the case if there are no other forces at play. But since gravity is acting on the atmosphere (just as it is acting on us), it cancels out the force of the vacuum pulling the atmosphere outwards (1). In other words, the fact that we still have an atmosphere proves that there is a downward force pulling the atmosphere towards earth. This force is gravity. If Con denies that gravity exists, then he must explain why we still have an atmosphere.SatellitesNASA probably could put cameras on high-altitude satellites, but for what purpose? We can still take composite photos of the earth from low altitude satellites so there is no point investing in the added cost of propelling a photo satellite to higher altitudes.True, it is more complicated to take composite images of earth, but because the scans are taken at a lower altitude they can take more detailed photos (since they are closer to the earth). If a single-shot photo was to be taken, it would have to be very far out and consequently the detail of the photo would not be as good. The scale might not be perfect (stitching a detailed composite image together can be very challenging) but it still succeeds in what the photo aims to do, which is to give an accurate representation of what the earth looks like from space.Regarding videos, any video of the whole earth rotating would have to be taken from very far out yet photo satellites are low altitude - it is much easier to take videos of the earth rotating from a low altitude satellite because these are easier to launch.The 'you are here' image is not an actual photo (we have not and probably never will leave the Milky Way), it is a composite visualisation created by combining all the star maps from all places around the earth and combining them to portray what the milky way looks like. I can't explain it very well, but this source explains how it is done: (2).As for the video, how do you know that the stream was taken by fish eye lenses? If they were taken using fish eye lenses, then wouldn't the part of the ISS we see in the stream also be distorted? Generally, photos tell the truth and the burden of proof lies on the person thinking it is fake. It is fallacious to insist that someone prove that a photos if true. Therefore, Con must prove that the stream showing the earth's curvature is taken by a fish eye lens.The 2002 photo does have identical cloud patterns, I admit that. But Con must remember that these are composite photos, and hence the stitching process can duplicate some parts. Furthermore, the scans of the earth leave some parts of the earth uncaptured, and so the photographers need to use Photoshop's clone tool to fill in these parts of the globe (3).The 'sex' isn't even particularly clear. It could alternatively be 'SFX'. Either way. it may be unlikely, but it is by no means impossible (it is only three letters, and in the original image they aren't even the right way up). The existence of that particular pattern does not prove that NASA have faked all their pictures of the earth and nor does it prove that the earth is flat.Regarding satellites, the photos of the earth are short-exposure takes; meaning that only the brightest parts of the image are visible. Less bright parts of the image would require a long-exposure shot to become visible. Since the earth is far, far brighter than stars or satellites, we can only see the earth (4).Con drops the Russian image of earth.CircumnavigationCon's model of the flat earth posits an 'ice wall' that surrounds the earth, after which one would fall off. This theory doesn't work though, because people have actually walked across Antarctica (5) and haven't fallen off. This refutes the notion the earth is flat with the north pole at the centre.GravitySmoke rises because it is hotter and therefore less dense than the air around it. This means that the upthrust exerted on the smoke is greater than the gravitational pull of the earth and there is a resultant upward force.I will reiterate, unless Con presents a better explanation compared to gravity explaining why objects are pulled towards the earth, his theory will remain incomplete and I will win the debate. We might not be able to directly prove that a mass exerts an attractive force just by virtue of its mass, but we still observe gravity every day and the best explanation is that a force-due-to-mass does exist. Science isn't about absolute proofs, it's about finding the best explanation for observed phenomena.Whilst we may not have dug deeper than 6 miles towards the centre of the earth, we can tell what's inside the earth. Firstly, we can tell the mass of the earth by measuring the pull of gravity, which is proportionate to mass. If we know the mass, we can approximate what's inside the earth. Secondly, the earth has a magnetic field so the earth must contain a significant amount of a magnetic substance (most likely iron). Lastly, we observe that volcanoes spew out molten lava and that there is magma inside volcanoes; which informs us that underneath the surface of the earth there is molten rock.Dipping distancesSpray and waves only affect the visibility to the height at which they reach. Most spray and waves do not rise more than three metres. Above this height, they have no affect on visibility and therefore it is actually better than at higher altitudes (where there is more condensation). If lighthouses were only tall in order to avoid the reduction in visibility caused by spray and waves, they would only need to be about four metres tall. Yet your average lighthouse is about 20m tall.If a powerful telescope is placed above the height of the highest swell (which would only be about 4 metres above sea level), it would be able to see across the Pacific Ocean if the earth was flat. This is a truism, since there is nothing that could obscure its line of sight. Since a telescope four metres above sea level cannot see across an ocean, it logically follows that the earth cannot be flat.The video of the ship going over the horizon is irrelevant. I didn't try to argue that the earth is round because of the way that ships go over the horizon. What I am arguing is that, if the earth was flat, there would be no reason why a powerful telescope could not see across an ocean if it was placed at a height that would avoid the swell obscuring the line of sight.High photosAdmittedly, the Felix Baumgartner example probably wasn't the best one for me to use because of the fish eye lens. But amateur balloon launches that show a slight curvature of the earth do not use fish eye lens (because if they did, the distortion would be far larger).SunTaking pictures of the sun directly causes lens flare, which is why it looks a lot bigger than it actually is.GoFastI watched the video and, Con is right, you can see the moon at the highest altitude. But even if the moon's position was directly above Australia at that time and date, this wouldn't mean that the rocket couldn't see it. Why? Because the moon is roughly 230,000 miles away (6). The moon isn't far enough around the globe (away from the US) to be unseen from a high altitude rocket; they aren't on opposite sides of the globe. (7)StarsI apologise for the bad source. Here is a working source to back up my claim (8).Con asks me to leave out the mathematics. But he did challenge me to prove that the stars are billions of miles away. Obviously we cannot directly observe a distance but we can indirectly calculate one. Science is built upon proven mathematical formula that give us most of our advanced scientific proofs. Con is being unscientific if he chooses to ignore the role of mathematics.__(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://go.nasa.gov...(4) http://go.nasa.gov...(5) http://bit.ly...(6) http://bit.ly...(7) http://bit.ly...(8) http://bit.ly...