Earth is flat

"But there is none" But...there is. I have presented a source that clearly says: "For an observer on the ground with eye level at h = 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m), the horizon is at a distance of 2.9 miles (4.7 km)." "You have not addressed the fact that on a ball, water would defy its own natural physics which is to remain flat and level." My opponent seems to ignore the works of gravity. Ok, let's imagine we have a downward sloping hill that is flat and at the bottom, we have a curvy, uneven basin. Will the water try to stay "flat and level" on the hill? Of course not. Water doesn't "try to stay" on a flat and level surface, water simply follows gravity just like all other things. "But there is none. The horizon stays at eye level no matter how high you go, and it's always flat." Here is a video I found and I think at about 2:36, there is a noticeable curve in the horizon. "My point about fisheye lenses is that 90% of the video and photos from official sources are using this lens whuch curves The Horizon. If you were to use a regular lens on a camera you would see that at any altitude Horizon remains flat and at eye level." I understand, but provide the above link as a counter. "Why do we see the moon in this video, when it should be on the opposite side of the planet? Notice how far away it is. It is on the other side of the PLANE." I don't see why that would be true. If the video was taken at around 7 AM, then it is quite possible that the moon is still visible at such high altitudes. Don't forget that while the moon moves, it is the rotation of the Earth that causes it to "appear and disappear", not the movement of the moon itself. "So that smoke rises in a calm day straight up? At what altitude does the friction of the earth stop affecting it's surroundings? Shouldn't the air then move faster as you gain altitude? Or slower, because it is further away from the source of the friction?" The friction never "stops affecting its surroundings". The Earth has been spinning with this atmosphere for so long that the entire atmosphere is in motion. And indeed, the air generally moves faster at higher altitudes because it is not impeded by friction with the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org... "The gyroscope stays at the same axis, allowing pilots to tell which way is up during a roll for example. Why doesn't the same hold true when the earth rolls?" What evidence has my opponent presented that the gyroscope doesn't stay on the same axis during a "roll" of the Earth? "The example in the article you provide shows a trip from the UK to the US, being in the northern hemisphere, With the arch northwards...As my example is a path between two points on the bottom of the globe, if you trace a path between those two points that Arch would not go northwards, but Southward. It certainly would not take you into the northern hemisphere." I don't see how this is a counter argument. I never suggested that all flight paths would go into the Northern Hemisphere. They don't all "arc up", some can "arc down" depending on the destination. My point is simply that as a result of the discrepancy between a 3D sphere and a 2D map, the paths on a 3D sphere may look redundant when they are indeed the shortest path possible. "The Midnight Sun can be seen as far south as Alaska, as low as the 65th parallel the diagram you provided does not explain how this can happen other than at the poles on the globe ." The Earth has an average tilt of 23.5 degrees. If we subtract this from 90 degrees (90 parallels in the Northern hemisphere), then we get 90-23.5=66.5. So just by this, we could say that the Midnight Sun could be visible down the the 66th parallel. If we also consider the slight wobble of the Earth, it is not unreasonable to say that this phenomenon could be visible just another degree down, at the 65th parallel. "Quick questions and answers" 1. But people have circumnavigated the globe from East to West. Does this not disprove the Flat Earth theory in and of itself? Also, I have just found information that someone has indeed circumnavigated the globe North to South. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com... Does this not also disprove the Flat Earth Theory? 2. Yes it was very hot, and the round-Earth model presents an explanation for this phenomenon. Flat Earth theory doesn't. 3. Every phenomenon my opponent mentioned "buoyancy, density and weight of things" result from gravity. I ask my opponent for evidence against the existence of a force called gravity. What is it then, that "pulls" a ball down when you drop it? 4. Evidence please. 5. My opponent has totally dodged my question on this one. I ask again, are all celestial objects flat? If yes, then why do we clearly see the moon to be round? If not, why is it just the Earth that's flat? I ask for responses to all of the above questions, and will push this even further. If the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, the Sun either revolves in the plane of the Earth, or perpendicular to the plane. If the Sun was revolving IN THE SAME PLANE as the flat Earth, then we would have constant daylight, however if it revolved perpendicular, then there would be periods where the entire Earth is dark, which is clearly not true either. Answers for my opponent: 1. Why wouldn't an inner layer of liquid exist if the temperature and pressure are clearly high enough for it. 2. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, elaborate please. 3. Gravity. Oh, and this is a fantastic point. Since my opponent rejects gravity, I'd like to hear his explanation for the Earth keeping its atmosphere in a vacuum. 4. Who said our weight doesn't decrease? Evidence please. 5. We do, we weigh less at higher altitudes. 6. Because there's very little demand for this service. 7. Because gravity makes it so that the comets follow specific routes relative to their surrounding celestial bodies. 8. Please present a source that it doesn't. 9. We do observe different constellations at different times of the year. http://www.windows2universe.org... I would like to say that my opponent questionnaire has been catastrophic for his own case, particularly points 3, 5 and 9. I would like to hear the explanations for these based on a gravity-less, Flat Earth theory. At this point, while my opponent has pushed some main points, I do not think he has managed to fulfill his sole BoP of providing sufficient evidence that the Earth is flat. Once again, he spends more time disproving the round Earth hypothesis rather than actually proving the flat Earth hypothesis. The last questionnaire is particularly problematic for his case as a flat Earth, with no gravity, struggles to provide reasonable explanations for the phenomena we observe. I will also ask, out of curiosity, what would be the point of such a conspiracy?