Earth is flat

"The second mile will square, and will square every mile thereafter. So, the ground or sea 2 miles away will be 32" downhill from you. At 3 miles, a full six feet of curvature would hide another human." Well for a person of average height, the horizon is indeed about 3 miles away. So yes, your above statement matches our observations. Does this not serve to prove the Earth is Round? https://en.wikipedia.org... "...would have a hump of water over 700 miles high. Have you ever seen water rest in a humped form?" If you were looking at the Earth perpendicular to its curvature, then yes the "hump" would see to be 700 miles high. However since your line of sight is tangential to the curve, it doesn't look like there is a giant hump because you're ON the hump. It's like if you're on a large hill, the hill is going to seem taller if you look AT the hill from the base than if you're on the slope of the hill looking UP the hill. I'm a bit confused about your point about fish eye lenses, could you elaborate on that please? I feel like my opponent's point about the "go fast rocket" is a bit irrelevant. He says "I research this, they did not provide a time for the launch as you can see they do now in the description of the video. I feel they have lied about this...", and I really don't see how this contributes to the debate. "If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion" If the Earth and atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate then yes, this shouldn't be experienced in any way. If the atmosphere was moving SLOWER than the Earth, then yes there would be a difference and we would feel it because we, spinning on the Earth, would be having to resist the friction of the slower atmosphere. However, since we're both going at about the same rate, nothing is felt. It's like if you floating down a river at the river's speed. You don't feel the river pushing against you. However if the river is moving slower than you're trying to swim, then you would feel the resistance of the water. About gyroscopes. My opponent himself said that the gyroscope stays on the same axis no matter the rotation of the "container", so why would the rotation of the Earth have any impact on the function of a gyroscope? The constant angular momentum of a gyroscope keeps it vertical, having nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth which is why gyroscopes can be used on things like ballistic missiles. "...the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way...In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map." Yes, you're absolutely right. These are basic concepts of non-Euclidean geometry and do nothing to prove that the Earth is flat. Read the link provided if you'd like to learn some more, but essentially, even though it may seem like planes take a very strange, curved route, they're actually taking pretty much the shortest possible route, as the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry tell us. The issue essentially is that a route that a plane takes on a sphere can't easily be represented on a 2D map but indeed in reality, as my opponent showed, the routes are actually straight/shortest possible. This concept could be applied to a basketball or any sphere, so it's not specific to the Earth and so I don't see how it proves that the Earth is flat because by that logic, every sphere is in reality flat (which it clearly isn't). http://www.science4all.org... Now about my opponent's point about the "Midnight Sun". He mentions that during the summer solstice (June 20-22), the Sun can be seen in the Arctic for very long periods of time and says this if proof that the earth is flat. This is not at all true considering that during the summer solstice, the Northern pole is "pointed towards" the Sun for several days. (Look at the link to see a diagram of this, it will help you understand the idea here). This means that even though the Earth is rotating on its axis, there are parts of the Earth where the Sun continues to shine non-stop for the duration of the solstice. Once again, there is clearly an explanation for this besides the Earth being flat. https://www.e-education.psu.edu... Now I have some questions for my opponent about his theory of a flat Earth. 1. Where are the edges of our flat Earth? 2. What happens if I dig down very deep? Will I fall through into space? 3. How does the flat Earth theory account for gravity? Gravity is probably the single largest proof we have that the Earth, along with virtually all celestial objects, is spherical. 4. Along with a flat Earth, does my opponent suggest a geocentric universe rather than a heliocentric model? In other words, does the Sun revolve around the Earth? 5. Does my opponent suggest that all celestial objects are flat? If so, then why is the moon clearly spherical? If not, then why is it just the Earth that's flat? As a whole, I feel that my opponent's main points arise from simple misunderstandings and I feel that he/she has not fulfilled his/her BoP.