The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

It's clear that my opponent has abandoned trying to prove the rotundity of the earth, which is the point of the debate, and is trying to strong arm the G word, as if for some reason the basic observation of things going down and things rising proves his case. He speaks of my ignoring an argument proving that two bodies are attracted to each other, after reviewing the article, I must point out some excerpts:"In the lab, a measurement of the strength of gravity must be free of any trace of stray electrical forces. It also has to account for the enormous influence of Earth’s gravity, as well as the influence of the Sun, Moon, and many other factors.""The resulting set-up was so sensitive, says Tino, it had to be operated by remote control otherwise the measurement could be skewed by the gravitational attraction of the scientists in the room.""According to Tino’s experiment, Big G is 6.67191 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. But as Tino’s results vary from the official value of 6.67384 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 they don’t resolve the problem. The rubidium experimental result is an outlier – but so are almost all the Big G measurements made over the last 20 years. It remains one of the mysteries of experimental physics."Now I don't know about you, but sometimes I can tell when someone is pulling my leg, and this seems to be one of those times. Firstly, the experiment is largely based on quantum or microscopic measurements, and as we all know, "gravity" acts very different in the quantum field. Secondly, it seems that the only way to get accurate results is in deep space, but the other planets and sun STILL have an effect on the results. This is not practical in any way. Why can't they just take a pebble, spin it around or make it stick to the side of a boulder? Do it on a spacewalk! I know this is your all in hand, but I'm not impressed. Also not how con ignores the possibility of an endless plane, where "the edge" that would "crumble on its own weight" is nonexistent. How would gravity work on an infinite plane? This was supported and attributed to Nikola Tesla. "Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT." ~ Nikola Tesla. But things are still better explained using buoyancy and density. I've seen zero evidence of the orbiting of two bodies, two bodies attracted to each other other than things of high density are drug down, or a simple experiment showing water can stick to a pressurized spinning ball in a vacuum. You can have buoyancy with a gas, I thought everyone knew this. Here is an elementary study on the subject of buoyancy: http://howthingsfly.si.edu...buoy·an·cy ;boiənsē,G2;boV2;oyənsē/ noun1.the ability or tendency to float in water or air or some other fluid. weight wāt/ noun1.a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it, giving rise to a downward force; the heaviness of a person or thing. As it stands going into round 5: view from airplanes: dropped, other spherical bodies: dropped, unlikelihood of an international conspiracy: dropped, end of the earth: dropped, sheer evidence overload: dropped (opponent's arguments for a spherical shaped earth)My opponent also drops the distances sighted argument, the reflections on water argument, and the flight paths argument, all of which show empirical proof of a flat earth, and goes all in with his "proof" of gravity. My opponent, who claims that gravity proves a spherical earth, also makes the claim that vomit comets prove gravity, do vomit comets prove gravity? Let's examine his statement:"For those who don't know, the Vomit Comet is any plane that flies in a specific parabolic, largely vertical flight path whose purpose is to introduce people to what it feels like to be free of gravity."Largely vertical flight path are the key words in this statement."In the opponent's view, the density of the air inside the plane is less than the density of a human, so the human should remain on the ground. We find, however, that when the plane enters a controlled fall, the people and object inside begin to "float" and can move around the plane in any direction without being pulled towards the Earth."So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with an apple?To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force. The ISS maintains a constant altitude, the only way the vomit comet works, is because the plane is falling at the same rate that density is carrying the ball to a place of equal or higher density, as you stated, it is falling. its is acting the same way that it would if there were no plane, and since the barriers of the plane are always just out of reach, the apple will only appear to float. Gravity is one of the top ten mysteries of science.(1) Believing in something you can't physically see (orbiting, etc) is more a faith. (1)http://www.iflscience.com... "The entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.” Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it. They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off. Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both. Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science." Eric DubayScientists who disagree with (and prove it) gravity.http://www.theepochtimes.com...http://beforeitsnews.com... It's surprising how when I mention how overuse of the G word is a pet peeve, my opponent shifts his entire argument to the existence of it, and ignores all other evidence. Con offers some flat earth counterexamples, since we have dismissed any question that gravity is absolute fact, I can address them.He doesn't seem to realize, and completely ignores, how linear perspective works, or atmospheric refraction for that matter, let's look at both of them. Linear PerspectiveAnother seemingly elementary law is the Law of Perspective. We've all seen the railroad tracks closing together to form a point, called the vanishing point. This point is, essentially, as far as we can see. what my opponent may not remember, is that this works on a vertical axis too, explained by looking at the telephone poles. The further the telephones get away from the viewer, the smaller they get. This eventually gets to a point where one simply cannot see the poles any longer, simply because the viewer is too far away from the pole, and it is now blended in with the horizon. this would be the equivalent to me saying that since the Nikon p900 can see objects ten miles away, mars, which is (supposed to be) 33.9 million miles away, should not be able to pull it into view, yet here it is.https://youtu.be... Here is a study on linear perspective. http://psych.hanover.edu... A video on the subject, since it is an entirely vision based concept, videos explain it better. https://youtu.be... Perspective, when combined with atmosphere, effectively blocks anything past a certain point from being seen by shrinking it, blocking it, and bending the light that is trying to come through. "Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces miragesand can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered, stretched or shortened with no mirage involved."This is clear when looking at some telescopic views of boats going out to sea. See how the water past a certain point is barely visible, reflecting the blue sky, with only breaks being visible.https://en.wikipedia.org...Please, the next time you are outside, look up and try to make out the details on a 747 that is only about 7 miles away, then imagine that times 2-300, this is why you cant see a white "fuzz" when looking at the stars at night.