The Earth is flat

"First off, gravity" ... Is a theory. For thousands of years, people just accepted the fact that up was up, and down was down, until it was postulated that the Earth was round. Then, the obvious questions came up ie. Why don't people fall off the bottom of the ball? Enter Newton and his apple, who said that since the earth was a ball, (an assumption) the earth must be acting as a big magnet. But he postulated this by looking at an apple falling down and assuming the Earth was a ball. Had a feather broke loose from a branch and floated away what would have happened then? In short, gravity is a theory based on an assumption. Which is ok, but sooner or later, you have to prove those assumptions, which is what my opponent is trying to do now, with that theory. If gravity is constant, and is the same everywhere, and the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph at the equator, but is barely moving at the pole, and gravity is countering the centrifugal force, why don't we weigh much less at the equator? Time zones are caused by a small, close sun, compared to the ball Earth model. Day and night cycles of objects in the sky are irrelevant. The small close sun goes in a circuit around the north pole over the plane. This becomes obvious when looking at videos of 24 hour days in the northern hemisphere. I'm not completely sure what my opponent means by "years would be alot shorter and Earth would be molten". Objects in the sky or firmament have nothing to do with the shape of the Terra Firma that we stand on. Planets have been known 4 years as wandering stars because they differ only from other stars and their apparent motion around the firmament. NASA produces CGI of the so-called planets to make us believe the heliocentric model. It would be like the pool stick looking at the billiard balls and deducing from their shape that the table is a massive ball too. Eclipses are one of the strongest arguments for ball earth, but since the early 1900's there have been over 50 recorded eclipses where both the sun AND moon were seen above the horizon. Here is one instance on video. https://youtu.be... Scientism will say refraction causes this, butt am I to believe that refraction causes both the light from the Sun and the Moon to be bent in opposite directions either way and the shadow to move in the opposite direction? What exactly causes eclipses is debatable, but I like the ancient idea of Rahu, a third celestial body, unseen by human eyes. What's hilarious is the picture my opponent provides is not of an eclipse, it is just a lunar phase. Varying constellations are seen throughout the plane because of perspective. From the north, these Southern Constellations have dropped below the horizon because they have reached the vanishing point. As does the Sun. I am sure you seen the railroad tracks disappear on the horizon, well it works on the vertical plane to as the telephone poles appear to get shorter with distance they are not they are just nearing the vanishing point where they disappear altogether or blend in with the horizon. Yes anyone can ride a plane and see a curved Horizon, but anyone who is observant enough know that all aircraft have curved windows, which have been shown to artificially curve straight lines. "You do not need a rocket to fly a plane." My opponent has not provided evidence that they flew the ISS into space on a rocket. My opponent recognizes that most images of earth as a ball are possibly photoshopped, but insists that the 1972 blue marble is authentic, but there's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. https://youtu.be... I believe my opponent is referencing Errortosthenese experiment, where he assumed the sun's rays all hit the earth at the same angle, and two sticks at two different locations cast different shadows. The same exact thing would happen on a flat earth if the sun were close and small, anyone can look up on a cloudy day and see that the sun's rays do not run parallel. http://www.eratosthenes.eu... http://all-that-is-interesting.com... "seasons. The flat Earth theory completely neglects seasons" False. In the winter, the sun's circuit is larger, and goes beyond the equator over the southern hemisphere, where it experiences summer, and closer to the pole in the northern hemisphere's summer. This makes more sense than the heliocentric model because when the northern hemisphere is experiencing summer, the sun is much further away than in our winter, where it is the closest in it's orbit. "Bonus argument" The Antarctic CIRCLE is the outer limit to our plane. My opponent calls the ideas blizzard because he, like most of us has never been to Antarctica, due to the Antarctic treaty. Pictures of the ice wall litter the internet, a simple Google search provides such. As far as spotlight suns, I'm not entirely sure where my opponent is getting his information from, likely a shill site like the flat earth society. Rerebuttals My opponent claims I don't "believe" in curvature, and goes on to say it is very minor, and cannot be seen. He then curiously provides a Wikipedia link to a bridge to support his claim... He then claims that video from the ISS provides views of such curvature. While this can technicallybe called new evidence which goes against his own rules, my refutation is simple. Why aren't common citizens going to the ISS yet to verify this? It's an argument from authority. This footage could be fisheye lens from a high altitude U2 plane. My objective argument of lateral curvature has been all but ignored, and substituted with his own argument backed up by subjective information. "Ok and how will this prove anything about the Earth being flat?" My opponent does not understand that I am refuting the entire heliocentric model, and with it, a spherical earth. "Except a day is 24 hours, not 8760." This statement makes no sense, and is irrelevant to my argument. The claims stands unrefuted. The rest of my opponent's argument is also an irrelevant appeal to authority. Quickly going over, it mentions Focaults pendulum, which is just a swinging ball on a cable that somehow convinced a bunch of people that the earth moves under it instead of the the obvious that the ball moves over the earth. What of the Allias effect, where the pendulum sometimes goes the opposite way or speeds up, is the earth changing directions or speed during an eclipse? "And there aren't 2 seasons, there are 4." There are two extremes, on the spring and fall equinoxes, the sun is in the middle, over the equator. "Your argument here completly neglects gravity. On a sphere Earth gravity may make everything look flat, and things can be treated as such. On a flat Earth, gravity would be like a steep hill and alot stronger" Gravity has nothing to do with flights going in the wrong direction in the southern hemisphere, maybe the voters will understand this elementary argument. The next few arguments are about gravity, which has been discussed, and satisfactorily refuted as inconclusive and irrelevant. "One of the most ridiculous arguments I see to deny gravity is "The Earth is accelerating up at 32 feet per second"" The earth has not moved an inch outside of tectonic PLATES movement since it's creation. " Alot of flights take a curved path that would seem weird on a FLAT Earth, actually, regardless of hemisphere. There are other reasons than a flat Earth to take that detour anyway. Mountains, weather, you name it." My opponent makes a baseless claim with no source or examples, and acts as though weather and mountains will cause every flight to go hundreds, if not thousands of miles out of the way to avoid a mountain (cue audience laughter) and weather, and "you name it"?! Compasses My opponent does not even address the argument presented, and instead ignorantly and arrogantly claims there could be no magnetic field on a flat earth. There are circular magnets, commonly found on speakers, where the inside is southern polarity, and the outside is northern. Of course we know the pole are technically reversed, so my opponent's rebuttal is refuted. http://practicalphysics.org... http://practicalphysics.org...