Flat Earth

I won't use a google doc this time, as I have no pictures to post. I shall defend each of my main arguments against the rebuttals my opponent offered: The orientation of the Moon My opponent claims the moon is much closer, but the scientific evidence doesn't suggest this, and I don't know of any evidence suggesting the moon is that much closer to the earth, so this, hopefully, will be something my opponent can offer in the next round. I will, however, present evidence that the moon is about 384,000 kilometers away. I admit, this may not be something just anyone can do, but physicists have bounced a laser off of retro-reflectors placed on the moon, and found that the laser takes 2.5 seconds to return to the earth.[13] I don't see any reason why they would lie about this either. To claim that the moon is much closer, you either must be claiming scientists are lying or they are incompetent, and I don't believe they are incompetent, that would need to be proven. At any rate, given it takes 2.5 seconds for light to travel back and forth from the moon to earth, and light travels at a speed of 299,793 kilometers per second[14], multipy that by 2.5 and you get 749,482 kilometers to travel to and back to the moon. Divide that by two, and you get 374,741, which is not that far off from the 384,000 estimate. That's likely off because we rounded down for the amount of time it takes light to travel to and from the moon, it's probably 2.56 seconds or something. So, since it's been repeatedly tested that the moon is usually about 384,000 kilometers away, this means the only way for the orientation of the moon to be different between the two hemispheres is for the earth to not be flat. The coriolis effect: Yes, I realized after I posted it, that what I said about the toilets wasn't factual(but I couldn't do anything after I said it, well I suppose I could have edited it out since I used a google doc, but figured that would be unfair to you since you can't edit your things after you post them) anyways, my geography professor told us that, and I admit I didn't bother to look this one up since I've had that geography class. So, I agree to dismissing this point and that this was a bad point on my part, but the point still stands that hurricanes go clockwise in the northern Hemisphere and counter clock-wise in the southern hemisphere. Either way, I don't see why I would need to provide reason for why the direction of deflection is different between the hemispheres. There is likely a scientific explanation for that(in fact, I slightly recall learning about it in my geography class), which either of us could easily look up. If you demand that I do so, I can in the next round, I don't feel particularly up to looking this one up right now; you could even do it yourself if you wanted to. The reason why this point doesn't matter, is because in a flat, motionless earth, it doesn't make any sense for the coriolis effect to exist at all. It's kind of a red herring to point out that the deflection differs in the southern and northern hemispheres, because under your model, there should be no deflection whatsoever. Also, remember that technically my stance is "con" to the flat earth, not necessarily that I am promoting a globular earth(though I did mention that the evidence I presented before was evidence for a globular earth, I should realize that my official stance is "con" against a flat earth, and just use this evidence as evidence against a flat earth, rather than trying to prove it is globular). The coriolis effect is still evidence against a flat earth: it may also be evidence against a globular earth, but all I'm doing is arguing against a flat earth. So unless you can provide a logical, scientific reason for the coriolis effect to exist on a flat, motionless earth, this point still stands. Ships disapearing over the horizon I find it ironic that you bring up atmospheric refraction here, but failed to see that was what was going on in that picture of Chicago you posted. Oh well, as for your video analysis, it doesn't prove that you can indefinitely "pull a ship over the horizon", as it doesn't show that happening in the video. Why am I to believe that the video I posted didn't zoom in far enough or had atmospheric refraction? In theory, as you said, as long as you zoom in far enough, you should always be able to see a ship on a flat earth model. However, I've never heard of anyone being able to zoom in, say, from North America, all the way to a ship near the shores of Asia(provided there is no atmospheric refraction or anything else that would prevent you from seeing the ship, other than possible curvature). How telescopes should work in a flat earth model Well, you don't have to use the human eye, one could use a computer to catch the image of Antarctica. Certainly someone would have paid enough attention to weather and when and if it would be possible to see antarctica with a telescope and tried it by now. Also, as I said, when you use a telescope, which anyone can do, and you point it parrelel to the ground, you eventually won't see any ground, as you're pointing tangential to the earth, if it was a sphere. I have a telescope, and have done this myself. I can't offer any proof only because I never recorded any of the times I did this, and it's a little unreasonable to expect me to go somewhere I could do this and do it for this debate. This is something you either need to try yourself, or just accept my word for it. Or, maybe you can find a video of someone doing this. My searching on youtube and other sites doesn't come up with this, probably because I don't know what to search for. Simply typing "telescope pointed parralel to ground to space" doesn't cut it. The problem with time zones Well, I provided evidence in the next section of the sun being far away. So, I'll just skip most of what you said here and address any problems you have with that evidence, since that evidence would apply here too. Though, there is one thing to say: there's no way for the sun to be going in a circle parallel to the earth's equator, while simultaneously saying that the earth is the center of the universe. The sun would be revolving around a point in space, above earth. It wouldn't be revolving around earth. Again, if it was on a flat earth model, revolving around earth, you'd have the problem I mentioned earlier. Eratosthenes’ experiment and disproving the sun is close to earth Re: Crepescular rays: You do realize that railroad tracks, going off in a distance, also appear to converge, even though they are perfectly parrelel, correct? The same applies to the sun's rays. This was such an easy explanation, I don't know why you didn't think of it. It all has to do with perspective. If, for example, you were to follow the sun's rays, you would see they all go in parralel lines, and do not converge, much like railroad tracks when you follow them. For more reading and explanation of crepescular rays, you can do so here [15] So, this isn't a reason to question the math behind why we know the sun is that far away. Frankly, I don't see how you can question math(if it was done properly). Unless you have evidence that the math was done improperly, I don't see why we should doubt it. To trust that your interpretation of what you "see" and how the sun light rays appear to converge at a closer distance than they are in reality, is like trusting your sight when it comes to a myriad of optical illusions, such as Ames' room [16]. There are many reasons to question what your eyes tell you, but I know of no reason to question properly done math. Math is concrete and never wrong, unless done incorrectly with human error. But again, you'd need to prove that the math was done or applied incorrectly. Video of the curvature of the earth: I concede this portion, but all of my previous points still stand. Sources: [13] http://www.physics.org...; [14] https://www.google.com...; [15] http://www.atoptics.co.uk... [16]