The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

Welcome everybody to this, our final round. We're currently discussing the shape of Earth and, in the previous round, I narrowed the topic to a discussion on gravity, satellites and the inconsistency of a flat Earth. I did so not to "ignore other arguments", but to limit the scope while still upholding my resolutional burden. Note that I have demonstrated that gravity, if it exists, is entirely inconsistent with a flat earth and, beyond that, demands that large bodies be mostly spherical. I also discussed satellites, mostly for the opponent and finally discussed one "gravity unrelated" example as to why the Earth cannot be flat. I have chosen not to return to some of my previous arguments, not because I felt they were weak, but because I knew that 10,000 characters was not enough to do them justice. In other words, I've chosen "depth" over "breadth", as I believe my opponent has "canned" answers for most of these issues that do not stand up to serious examination.It seems I did explicitly drop bringing up the "sun's linear reflection on water" argument, though I'm fairly confident that my current evidence for a round earth will "trump" that. I'll briefly mention it again, should I have the time. IntroductionThe opponent has decided to both make up definitions and make up known physics in this final round to justify his point. While I can allow that he is operating under the assumption that gravity does not exist, I cannot allow that he is free to come up with his own physical models backed simply by his own conjecture and no empirical evidence. GravityThe EvidenceEdl attempts to show my evidence "unfit" and "untrue" because different experiments have been unable to nail down the exact force of gravity on objects. To be clear, the quantitative part of these two different results were 6.67191 and 6.67384. This is a noteable difference, but they are both extremely near one another -- exactly what one would expect during experimentation. Rarely in experimental physics do the "results" precisely match one another. As my opponent has mentioned, there are a great many objects that have a gravitational force that must be considered. As for his claim regarding "quantum measurements", this is just untrue. The measurements of the force of gravity were on a microscopic scale because the actual equation for gravitational force itself shows that two relatively small objects have a very small gravitational force. The actual objects whose relative gravitational force as being measured were not microscopic -- just the force they shared, which is expected to be very small. The fact that multiple tests found numbers very similar implies that they tests were successful to some large degree.Odd Counter-Examples"Why can't you just take a pebble, spin it around and make it stick to the side of a boulder?"The gravitational force between the two is extremely weak. If you did this in deep enough space (where the force between the two is stronger than the force of extremely distant bodies) then yes, the two would eventually "stick together". This would take a very long time. "Con ignores the possibility of an endless plane."Uh, yes. I actually did. A) We have reason to believe the amount of matter in the universe is finite. B) If the Earth's plane were infinite, it would have an infinite amount of matter very close together and the earth would quickly collapse into a black hole. C) Even if this part of physics wasn't real and it didn't collapse into a black hole, it would certainly collapse into itself. This only makes my spherical body due to gravity even more relevant. D) If it was infinite, I can admit there'd be no edge -- but that wouldn't stop the "middle parts" from crumbling in on themselves. Surely we're not assuming that a mysterious force holds the plane together in that shape, when we can clearly remove parts of the surface?"Nikola Tesla says...."I tried to confirm this and found that the only sources claiming this were of the "planetruth.com", "flatearthyo.org" and similar sources. While I'm not saying these are de facto incorrect, if Nikola Tesla did hold these fews there would likely be historical documentation outside of conspiracy websites.And more importantly, something is not true because a person says it is. Nikola Tesla said many insane things in his life, the majority of them due to the actually documented insanity that he possessed. He's a brilliant man, but his word, especially in this context, is proof of nothing. Buoyancy and DensityHere, the opponent makes up the definition of to suit his whims. I'll first admit, though, that some sources consider the term "buoyancy" to apply to gases, while others would use a different term, reserving buoyancy to only apply to liquids. This is irrelevant to the next part of my argument, however.The opponent presents a source which clearly says "All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force—called buoyancy—on any object immersed in them." His "elementary study" defines buoyancy in respect to gravity, which was my entire point. His definition for "weight" is obviously of his own creation as it is downright incorrect.As every physics I student knows mass and weight are two completely different things. One concerns the amount of matter in an object, while the other considers the downward force that object possesses in a gravitational field. (Feel free to use any dictionary and look at the definition of weight. You'll see that gravity is mentioned.)Because buoyancy only makes sense under the assumption of gravity, the opponent cannot claim that buoyancy is the explanation for gravitational events, but that gravity does not exist. If gravity does not exist then buoyancy, as it is defined, does not exist either. You cannot have the latter without the former. Vomit CometThis is the part where Edl makes up a bunch of physics. He claims that because VC's fly in largely vertical flight paths, "the force [of the motion of the plane] counters the force due to density", causing it to float. This doesn't actually make physical sense, since the density of the person in the plane and the air around that person in no way physically changes due to the motion of the plane. When the person begins to float, they are moving through the clearly-still-less-dense air, which should be impossible if density alone explained the "downward force". If the opponent seriously wants to argue that another counteracting force comes into play, he should understand that this counteracting force would equally apply to the person in the plane and the air inside the plane. Both forces would be countered the same amount, meaning the more-dense thing should still remain on the bottom of the plane. And yes, I understand that a helium balloon would float in a VC. This as not my point. [Though it does so because the air inside is less dense than the air in a plane. If you did the experiment in reverse and flew upward extremely fast, you'd find the balloon rested on the bottom of the plane, despite it being less dense than the air around it. Here, I am using the term density as the opponent has used it.] Gravity is a MysteryYes, it is. Why gravity exists at all and where this force specifically comes from is a mystery. The effects that gravity has on objects is well understood. We don't know why objects possess this fundemental force, but we do understand the physics involved regarding this force this object emits. ConclusionThe opponent again attempts to explain gravity away with "buoyancy", while not realizing that buoyancy itself is defined as only working because of the existence of gravity. In a few places he makes up definitions to attempt to get around this, which I did not let stand, and in others he attempts to make up his own physics, which I also did not let stand. At this point, the opponent has in no way brought himself closer to explaining the force we call gravity in any terms other than gravity. As a result of this, my arguments concerning the impossibility for gravity to exist alongside a flat earth stand, eliminating the possibility of a flat earth. Ive further demonstrated that gravity causes spherical planets to form, upholding my end of the resolution. Looking over horizon and seeing stars, not an atmospheric fog.The opponent talks about linear perspective, then makes up some science. I'll look at each.Linear perspective is a very real phenomenon that occurs when looking at things with our bare eyes. Consider the opponent's "train track" example. If we stand on tracks and look along them, they appear to converge. This is true. However, if you pull out some binoculars, the point of convergence would move from, say 1000m away to 10,000 m away. Linear perspective is a flaw of any "seeing device's" ability to see well. You can always pull out a more powerful telescope and move the apparent convergence point further back. (In this case, you'd reach the end of the tracks.)The made up part when the opponent implies that we can see stars directly on the horizon and through miles and miles of low ground atmosphere because the light is effectively being "bent" around it. He briefly mentions mirages. This is completely made up in that it doesn't conform to known physical facts and is the apparent misapplication of the science involved in mirages. I can't really argue against abject lying in any way then pointing out that it isn't true, so I'll again reiterate my point.In a flat earth, if you looked parallel of the earth toward the horizon, you would expect to see not much of anything (an atmospheric blur). Instead, you see stars, which should clearly be occluded by the atmosphere and cities/mountains/etc. present. This creates a contradiction, whose only rational explanation is that the earth is not flat.ConclusionI've run out of space again. I've proved that the force of gravity does exist and that the opponent hasn't provided an ulterior explanation. This proves round earth (see r3,4).