Is Earth a sphere or disk

Challenge appreciated, Instigator. I would like to make an initial note- as a nonbiblical Christian, biblical passages are rather irrelevant to me, unless they can be directly substantiated by empirical evidence. I shall address each statement in which you have listed, and I shall provide a counter argument of my own. However, there is a strong probability that I will be limited in terms of words available, so if any information is left, I shall carry it over to the next round. All sources shall be listed within the text.1. Well, quite frankly, that is the argument itself- Earth is too big to 'notice' any curvature at low altitudes. While not as common for commercial aircraft to exceed approximately more than about 40,000 feet, aircraft engaging in long-distance travel (e.g. across the world) can occasionally travel at an approximate 50,000 feet to 60,000 fee (though very rarely 60,000). At this height in particular (closer to 60,000 feet) is when the curvature becomes properly visible. However, given a broader range of view, this number can vary, give or take a few thousand feet. Source: (http://thulescientific.com...) A tall building is not where near tall enough to properly see the curvature of the earth. Even Mount Everest stands only approximately 26,000 feet at its peak.Using the known mass and general density of the earth, 5.97E^24 kg (for mass), one can prompty calculate volume, and thus radius, to create a distinct isosceles triangle (using the radius twice on two separate points), given the measure of the arc of the earth is measured. This experiment was actually performed by a YouTuber under the name of Eccentric Views (). The full video will offer the calculatory model, but using two sky scrapers, he was able to determine curvature However, what interests me is your actual lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that earth is in fact a "sphere". It seems as though the majority of your arguments are simple attempts to refute the validity of my claims. I am interested in how you propose a "center of mass" in a flat earth, unless you propose the same hypothesis as other conspirators- where the earth 'accelerates upward' at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 (the gravity constant of earth). But assuming that were the case, then please explain to me two things: A. What force is causing the earth to accelerate? B. In terms of relativity, what prevents the earth from accelerating to the speed of light? If these were not under your assumptions, then please explain your own theory concerning the center of gravity and how it relates to the remainder of the earth. Without a center of mass, common gravity laws cannot function in the same manner as we witness on earth. 2. The reason which the oceans and atmosphere do not "pour" out of the earth into space is because of a force commonly referred to as centripetal force. This is an inward-pulling force (in the case of earth, 'gravity') which is constant at all times during the cirrular motion. In the same respect, this may apply to spheres in the third-dimension. I will leave a diagram below that I wrote up. I do apologize if the handwriting is difficult to read, or if the lighting makes it difficult to see: Another common misconception is that a vacuum might "pull" the atmosphere from the earth. This is misconceived, as a common laws of nature tends to state that areas of higher pressure disperse into areas of lower pressure, since the collective molecules are provided additional room to spread out. However, using this comparison to earth is under the assumption that the vacuum of space actually exerts a force upon the atmosphere. But, as there is no apparent 'force' within a third-dimensional vacuum, meaning that there is no actual 'pull', merely a push from earth's own molecules, ramming into one another in the space within the atmosphere. But this force is very minimal, and the force of gravity well exceeds this.3. Circumnavigation is not exactly first priority on my list, but I may as well address this factor regardless. While yes, no line segment may prove perfectly straight, we have correction tools. However, statistically speaking, which is more likely- A round earth, where every attempt to circumnavigate was led astray by a consistent turn of the wheel, or a loop? This would be placing quite the assumption on just the vastness of human error4. As an artist of hobby, this is actually a rather easy explanation as to why earth appears 'two dimensional'. In order to see "depth", a distinct light source must be present. In the case of earth, this is the Sun. However, negative-ground is also crucial into rendering depth. Space is quite literally a black void, so dark, that it is unable to produce any legitamate reflection of its own (due to lack of matter to reflect off of). This being said, no additional light is actually being reflected back onto the earth. But even still, often times depth can be seen. s://www.nasa.gov...; alt="" />Take this image for example. The edges do fade into darkness, even if ever-so-slightly. However, it is a visual effect, that it looks as though it has not, due to the overwhelming contrast between the space and the earth. (Sorry if the image posted rather large. I could not make it any smaller.) Image source: (https://www.nasa.gov...).I am not particularly concerned about the "validity" of the moon landing, as that is a topic of another debate. This is a discussion of the earth's curvature, not the moon landing. 5. The ISS itself is actually observable in space via telescrope. In fact, NASA themselves gave guided instructions on how to witness it- rather confident. s://www.nasa.gov...; alt="Image of a graphic showing how to locate a satellite during a viewing opportunity." />This source also includes the datapoints of its elevation, approach, and departure. There are quite a few accounts of individuals taking the liberty of viewing it themselves:Here are only a couple of examples. Whether you wish to believe them or not is up to you; however, if you do not, I recommend looking for it yourself through their instruction guide. Guide at (https://www.nasa.gov...). 6. I mentioned at the beginning of this round that I am a nonbiblical Christian, and Bible passages do not concern me without proper citation and empirical evidence to support them. As the instigator does not seem to have listed any sources to "proof", I shall disregard this, as this is seemingly irrelevant as a source alone. 7. Actually, it is not uncommon for people to assume the reasoning for this phenomenon was an attempt for the flat Earth community to satirically mimic the logo, as an attempt to "troll". I might also note that your "convincing evidence" is a 404 'Not Found' error message. I apologize if my argument lacked in mathematical proofs, but as this was only a twenty-four hour debate, and since I have school during the day, I was rather rushed on time. I also apologize if it was not well tuned, as I have been feeling exceptionally tired and fatigued as of lately, and my concentration has plummeted. Good luck on the next round, Instigator. I shall leave you with a few experiments and observations, many of which have no direct connection to NASA:;(Seventh grader builds balloon to upper atmosphere).